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

Yiyang Wu
2024-09-17T05:27:57Z

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.