[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <35ee9669-6ae1-4647-8028-eb7c82f10dac@www.fastmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 21:57:56 -0700
From: "Daniel Xu" <dxu@...uu.xyz>
To: "Alexei Starovoitov" <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: "bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
"Alexei Starovoitov" <ast@...nel.org>,
"Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
"Andrii Nakryiko" <andrii@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpftool: Add SPDX identifier to btf-dump-file output
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022, at 4:39 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 4:10 PM Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Alexei,
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022, at 2:38 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> > On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 4:01 PM Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> A concern about potential GPL violations came up at the new $DAYJOB when
>> >> I tried to vendor the vmlinux.h output. The central point was that the
>> >> generated vmlinux.h does not embed a license string -- making the
>> >> licensing of the file non-obvious.
>> >>
>> >> This commit adds a LGPL-2.1 OR BSD-2-Clause SPDX license identifier to
>> >> the generated vmlinux.h output. This is line with what bpftool generates
>> >> in object file skeletons.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>
>> >> ---
>> >> tools/bpf/bpftool/btf.c | 1 +
>> >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/btf.c b/tools/bpf/bpftool/btf.c
>> >> index a2c665beda87..fca810a27768 100644
>> >> --- a/tools/bpf/bpftool/btf.c
>> >> +++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/btf.c
>> >> @@ -425,6 +425,7 @@ static int dump_btf_c(const struct btf *btf,
>> >> if (err)
>> >> return err;
>> >>
>> >> + printf("/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (LGPL-2.1 OR BSD-2-Clause) */\n\n");
>> >
>> > I don't think we can add any kind of license identifier
>> > to the auto generated output.
>> > vmlinux.h is a pretty printed dwarfdump.
>>
>> Just so I understand better, when you say "I don't think we can",
>> do you mean:
>>
>> 1) There may be legal issues w/ adding the license identifier
>> 2) It doesn't make sense to add the license header
>> 3) Something else?
>
> 2
Got it, thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists