Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc:     tj@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, jeyu@kernel.org,
        shuah@kernel.org, bvanassche@acm.org, dan.j.williams@intel.com,
        joe@perches.com, keescook@chromium.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        minchan@kernel.org, linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 3/6] selftests: add tests_sysfs module
In-Reply-To: <Yao3vtSKBKLyQY1E@kroah.com>
References: <20211029184500.2821444-1-mcgrof@kernel.org>
 <20211029184500.2821444-4-mcgrof@kernel.org> <Yao3vtSKBKLyQY1E@kroah.com>
Date:   Sun, 22 May 2022 16:37:19 +0200
Message-ID: <87fsl1iqg0.ffs@tglx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

Greg,

On Fri, Dec 03 2021 at 16:29, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 11:44:57AM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:

sorry for missing this thread. I came accross it now as I'm looking into
the licensing mess again.

>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later OR copyleft-next-0.3.1
>
> Again, sorry, but no, I am going to object to this license as you are
> only accessing a GPL-v2-only api.  Any other license on a file that
> interacts with that, especially for core stuff like testing the
> functionality of this code, needs to have that same license.  Sorry.

That's a bogus argument. First of all the code is dual licensed and
second we have enough code in the kernel which is licensed MIT/BSD and
happily can access the GPL-v2-only APIs.

Aside of that we have already code in the kernel which is dual licensed

     GPL-2.0-or-later OR copyleft-next-0.3.1

We just can't make it SPDX clean because copyleft-next-0.3.1 is not in
LICENSING.

While I agree that we want to keep the number of licenses as small as
possible, we cannot really dictate which dual licensing options a
submitter selects unless the license is GPL-2.0-only incompatible, which
copyleft-next is not.

Can we just get over this, add the license with the SPDX identifier and
move on?

Thanks,

        tglx