The bpf_doc script refers to the GPL as the "GNU Privacy License".
I strongly suspect that the author wanted to refer to the GNU General
Public License, under which the Linux kernel is released, as, to the
best of my knowledge, there is no license named "GNU Privacy License".
This patch corrects the license name in the script accordingly.
Signed-off-by: Gianmarco Lusvardi <[email protected]>
---
scripts/bpf_doc.py | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/scripts/bpf_doc.py b/scripts/bpf_doc.py
index 61b7dddedc46..0669bac5e900 100755
--- a/scripts/bpf_doc.py
+++ b/scripts/bpf_doc.py
@@ -513,7 +513,7 @@ eBPF programs can have an associated license, passed along with the bytecode
instructions to the kernel when the programs are loaded. The format for that
string is identical to the one in use for kernel modules (Dual licenses, such
as "Dual BSD/GPL", may be used). Some helper functions are only accessible to
-programs that are compatible with the GNU Privacy License (GPL).
+programs that are compatible with the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL).
In order to use such helpers, the eBPF program must be loaded with the correct
license string passed (via **attr**) to the **bpf**\\ () system call, and this
--
2.43.0
2024-02-13 23:07 UTC+0000 ~ Gianmarco Lusvardi <[email protected]>
> The bpf_doc script refers to the GPL as the "GNU Privacy License".
> I strongly suspect that the author wanted to refer to the GNU General
> Public License, under which the Linux kernel is released, as, to the
> best of my knowledge, there is no license named "GNU Privacy License".
>
> This patch corrects the license name in the script accordingly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gianmarco Lusvardi <[email protected]>
> ---
> scripts/bpf_doc.py | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/bpf_doc.py b/scripts/bpf_doc.py
> index 61b7dddedc46..0669bac5e900 100755
> --- a/scripts/bpf_doc.py
> +++ b/scripts/bpf_doc.py
> @@ -513,7 +513,7 @@ eBPF programs can have an associated license, passed along with the bytecode
> instructions to the kernel when the programs are loaded. The format for that
> string is identical to the one in use for kernel modules (Dual licenses, such
> as "Dual BSD/GPL", may be used). Some helper functions are only accessible to
> -programs that are compatible with the GNU Privacy License (GPL).
> +programs that are compatible with the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL).
>
> In order to use such helpers, the eBPF program must be loaded with the correct
> license string passed (via **attr**) to the **bpf**\\ () system call, and this
Not sure how I came up with that one. Thanks for the fix!
Fixes: 56a092c89505 ("bpf: add script and prepare bpf.h for new helpers documentation")
Reviewed-by: Quentin Monnet <[email protected]>
Hello:
This patch was applied to bpf/bpf.git (master)
by Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]>:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 23:05:46 +0000 you wrote:
> The bpf_doc script refers to the GPL as the "GNU Privacy License".
> I strongly suspect that the author wanted to refer to the GNU General
> Public License, under which the Linux kernel is released, as, to the
> best of my knowledge, there is no license named "GNU Privacy License".
>
> This patch corrects the license name in the script accordingly.
>
> [...]
Here is the summary with links:
- Corrected GPL license name
https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf/c/e37243b65d52
You are awesome, thank you!
--
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html