* [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: clarify libbpf skeleton header licensing
@ 2024-04-15 23:06 Martin Kelly
2024-04-15 23:16 ` Alexei Starovoitov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Martin Kelly @ 2024-04-15 23:06 UTC (permalink / raw
To: bpf
Cc: linux-doc, Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann, Andrii Nakryiko,
Jonathan Corbet, Martin Kelly
Add an explicit statement clarifying that generated BPF code bundled
inside a libbpf skeleton header may have a license distinct from the
skeleton header (in other words, the bundled code does not alter the
skeleton header license). This is a follow-up from a previous thread
discussing licensing terms:
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/54d3cb9669644995b6ae787b4d532b73@crowdstrike.com/#r
Signed-off-by: Martin Kelly <martin.kelly@crowdstrike.com>
---
Documentation/bpf/bpf_licensing.rst | 6 +++++-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/bpf_licensing.rst b/Documentation/bpf/bpf_licensing.rst
index b19c433f41d2..05bc1b845e64 100644
--- a/Documentation/bpf/bpf_licensing.rst
+++ b/Documentation/bpf/bpf_licensing.rst
@@ -89,4 +89,8 @@ Packaging BPF programs with user space applications
Generally, proprietary-licensed applications and GPL licensed BPF programs
written for the Linux kernel in the same package can co-exist because they are
-separate executable processes. This applies to both cBPF and eBPF programs.
+separate executable processes. In particular, BPF code bundled inside a libbpf
+skeleton header may have a different license than that of its surrounding
+skeleton. In other words, the license of the bundled BPF code does not alter the
+license of the skeleton header nor of a program including the header. This
+paragraph applies to both cBPF and eBPF programs.
--
2.34.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: clarify libbpf skeleton header licensing
2024-04-15 23:06 [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: clarify libbpf skeleton header licensing Martin Kelly
@ 2024-04-15 23:16 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2024-04-16 18:39 ` Martin Kelly
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Alexei Starovoitov @ 2024-04-15 23:16 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Martin Kelly
Cc: bpf, open list:DOCUMENTATION, Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann,
Andrii Nakryiko, Jonathan Corbet
On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 4:07 PM Martin Kelly
<martin.kelly@crowdstrike.com> wrote:
>
> Add an explicit statement clarifying that generated BPF code bundled
> inside a libbpf skeleton header may have a license distinct from the
> skeleton header (in other words, the bundled code does not alter the
> skeleton header license). This is a follow-up from a previous thread
> discussing licensing terms:
> https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/54d3cb9669644995b6ae787b4d532b73@crowdstrike.com/#r
>
> Signed-off-by: Martin Kelly <martin.kelly@crowdstrike.com>
> ---
> Documentation/bpf/bpf_licensing.rst | 6 +++++-
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/bpf_licensing.rst b/Documentation/bpf/bpf_licensing.rst
> index b19c433f41d2..05bc1b845e64 100644
> --- a/Documentation/bpf/bpf_licensing.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/bpf/bpf_licensing.rst
> @@ -89,4 +89,8 @@ Packaging BPF programs with user space applications
>
> Generally, proprietary-licensed applications and GPL licensed BPF programs
> written for the Linux kernel in the same package can co-exist because they are
> -separate executable processes. This applies to both cBPF and eBPF programs.
> +separate executable processes. In particular, BPF code bundled inside a libbpf
> +skeleton header may have a different license than that of its surrounding
> +skeleton. In other words, the license of the bundled BPF code does not alter the
> +license of the skeleton header nor of a program including the header. This
> +paragraph applies to both cBPF and eBPF programs.
The doc is clear enough. This is unnecessary.
Otherwise we'll start listing every project that bundles bpf prog
in some form.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: clarify libbpf skeleton header licensing
2024-04-15 23:16 ` Alexei Starovoitov
@ 2024-04-16 18:39 ` Martin Kelly
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Martin Kelly @ 2024-04-16 18:39 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Alexei Starovoitov
Cc: bpf, open list:DOCUMENTATION, Alexei Starovoitov, Daniel Borkmann,
Andrii Nakryiko, Jonathan Corbet
On 4/15/24 16:16, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> The doc is clear enough. This is unnecessary.
> Otherwise we'll start listing every project that bundles bpf prog
> in some form.
I figured that with licensing, being explicit never hurts, but I take
your point and am happy to drop the patch.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-04-16 18:40 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2024-04-15 23:06 [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: clarify libbpf skeleton header licensing Martin Kelly
2024-04-15 23:16 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2024-04-16 18:39 ` Martin Kelly
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).