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 23:12:20 +0100
From:	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
To:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
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 Sat, 2015-03-07 at 14:02 -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On March 7, 2015 1:54:41 PM PST, Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl> wrote:
> >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?

Not fun, but surely doable.

> >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".

I'm not going to explain here why "GPL v2" or "GPL v2 or later" differ.

"GPL" is documented to mean "GPL v2 or later". "GPL v2" is documented to
mean just that (see include/linux/module.h). Again, you're free to
submit a patch to somehow simplify that. But unless a patch like that is
applied, we should make sure MODULE_LICENSE() matches the actual license
of the module involved.


Paul Bolle

--
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/