linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 02/24] erofs: add superblock data structure in Rust

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <igyrm2gfmedt6v654lxcarcc7gqhc2qjkyopkwk65cdtnue3uh@rkz3m5s2qcm4>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2024 13:27:39 +0800
From: Yiyang Wu <toolmanp@...p.cc>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 02/24] erofs: add superblock data structure in Rust

On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 07:55:43PM GMT, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 09:56:12PM +0800, Yiyang Wu wrote:
> > diff --git a/fs/erofs/rust/erofs_sys.rs b/fs/erofs/rust/erofs_sys.rs
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..0f1400175fc2
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/fs/erofs/rust/erofs_sys.rs
> > @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
> > +#![allow(dead_code)]
> > +// Copyright 2024 Yiyang Wu
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT or GPL-2.0-or-later
> 
> Sorry, but I have to ask, why a dual license here?  You are only linking
> to GPL-2.0-only code, so why the different license?  Especially if you
> used the GPL-2.0-only code to "translate" from.
> 
> If you REALLY REALLY want to use a dual license, please get your
> lawyers to document why this is needed and put it in the changelog for
> the next time you submit this series when adding files with dual
> licenses so I don't have to ask again :)
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

C'mon, I just don't want this discussion to be heated.

I mean my original code is licensed under MIT and I've already learned
that Linux is under GPL-2.0. So i originally thought modifying it to
dual licenses can help address incompatiblity issues. According to
wikipedia, may I quote: "When software is multi-licensed, recipients
can typically choose the terms under which they want to use or
distribute the software, but the simple presence of multiple licenses
in a software package or library does not necessarily indicate that
the recipient can freely choose one or the other."[1], so according
to this, I believe putting these under a GPL-2.0 project should be
OK, since it will be forcily licensed **only** under GPL-2.0.

Since I wasn't involved in Kernel Development before, 
I just don't know you guys attitudes towards this kind of stuff.
If you guys are not pretty happy with this, I can just switch back to
GPL-2.0 and it's a big business for me.

Best Regards,
Yiyang Wu.