Re: [RFC PATCH 01/17] fs: Add the ZUF filesystem to the build + License

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 04:55:19PM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> On 20/02/19 13:03, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 01:51:20PM +0200, Boaz harrosh wrote:
> >>   However the ZUS user mode Server is a BSD-3-Clause licensed
> >>   project.
> >>   Therefor you will see that:
> >> 	zus_api.h
> >> 	md_def.h
> >> 	md.h
> >>   These are common files with ZUS project are separately Licensed as
> >>   BSD-3-Clause. Any contributor to these files should note that his
> >>   code for these files is submitted as BSD-3-Clause.
> >>   This is for the obvious reasons as these define the API between Kernel
> >>   an user-mode Server. It is the opinion of this  project authors, as is
> >>   of Linus that a pure API header is not governed by ANY license. But
> >>   to make it clear.
> > 
> > No, that is not true, the files do have a license.  Please see the
> > proper SPDX text that we use for kernel api .h files for what that is,
> > and what you should also use for yours, if you go through with this.
> > 
> 
> OK Good I understand more now. I looked at UAPI/ headers and read the
> docs you mentioned.
> 
> Please help me nail this properly. I will change these headers to be:
> 
> /* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note AND BSD-3-Clause */
> (I will also change the message text to reflect this conversation)
> 
> My motivation is that those Interface HEADERS can also be used in proprietary
> OSs as Macosx and Windows. To compile the ZUS Server application project which
> is licensed as SPDX BSD-3-Clause.

You are asking legal questions to a technical person?  Would you ask
medical questions to a lawyer?

Consult your lawyers please, they know the answers to this.

And if they do not, go find your corporate lawyers who do.

Hint, as a test, ask them why what you wrote as a suggested SPDX line
above makes no sense :)

good luck!

greg k-h