On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 8:52 PM Luis Chamberlain [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, Dec 03, 2021 at 04:29:02PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 11:44:57AM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:

quoted

quoted

diff --git a/lib/test_sysfs.c b/lib/test_sysfs.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..2a6ec072da60
--- /dev/null
+++ b/lib/test_sysfs.c

@@ -0,0 +1,894 @@
+// 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.

Huh? The license is GPL-v2 compatible, and when used in the kernel the
GPLv2 applies.

Likewise, are you taking the position that permissively licensed code,
say BSD or ISC licensed code, cannot use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() symbols?

Just chiming in here, not really because of any association with the
copyleft-next license (or GPLv2 for that matter) but because of
general personal immersion in open source licensing. I would think
that code interacting with a GPLv2-only api could be under any
GPLv2-only-compatible license, such as ISC, GPLv2-or-later, or
copyleft-next. That said, of course kernel maintainers can establish
stricter policies around acceptable forms of licensing.

Richard