linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] Input: add support for Semtech SX8654 I2C touchscreen controller

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]

Date:	Sat, 07 Mar 2015 14:02:27 -0800
From:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
CC:	Sébastien Szymanski 
	<sebastien.szymanski@...adeus.com>, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Input: add support for Semtech SX8654 I2C touchscreen controller

On March 7, 2015 1:54:41 PM PST, Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl> wrote:
>On Sat, 2015-03-07 at 13:25 -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>> I am not sure if anyone cares about exact version of GPL in module
>> information (2 only vs 2+) since it only used to figure out if the
>> module taints kernel or not. In fact there are more modules that are
>v2
>> only that claim GPL than the ones claiming GPL v2.
>> 
>> dtor@...r-ws:~/kernel/master$ for file in `grep -r -l
>'MODULE_LICENSE("GPL")'`; do grep -H '2 as published' $file; done | wc
>-l
>> 259
>> dtor@...r-ws:~/kernel/master$ for file in `grep -r -l
>'MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2")'`; do grep -H '2 as published' $file; do ne |
>wc -l
>> 150
>> 
>> Also:
>> 
>> dtor@...r-ws:~/kernel/master$ for file in `grep -r -l
>'MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2")'`; do grep -H '2 or ' $file; done | wc -l
>> 68
>> dtor@...r-ws:~/kernel/master$ for file in `grep -r -l
>'MODULE_LICENSE("GPL")'`; do grep -H '2 or ' $file; done | wc -l
>> 237
>
>By that logic we might as well simplify the logic of
>license_is_gpl_compatible() and MODULE_LICENSE() quite a bit. Why check
>for six variants instead of just one and be done with it?

Because nobody wants to go through  hundreds of drivers and change them?

>
>Anyhow, "GPL" and "GPL v2" are both allowed but not identical. So,
>unless a patch is applied to treat them interchangeably, somehow, in
>the
>module license checking code, 

They are treated interchangeably as far as I can see. Where do you see "GPL" is being treated differently than "GPL v2".

> we ought to make each instance of
>MODULE_LICENSE() match the actual license of the module it's used for.
>
>Yes, that's annoying. You're free to submit a patch to end all the
>busywork this brings along. But I fear there's a reason for all that
>busywork. Please prove me wrong. It would make everyone's life a bit
>easier.
>
>
>Paul Bolle


Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/