[PATCH bpf-next] bpf: clarify libbpf skeleton header licensing

[PATCH bpf-next] bpf: clarify libbpf skeleton header licensing

[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

Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: clarify libbpf skeleton header licensing

[Alexei Starovoitov]

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.

Re: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: clarify libbpf skeleton header licensing

[Martin Kelly]

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.