linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: power: Add Actions Semi S900 SPS

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:   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 15:57:13 +0100
From:   Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
To:     Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
Cc:     Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, liuwei@...ions-semi.com,
        96boards@...obotics.com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        amit.kucheria@...aro.org, hzhang@...obotics.com,
        bdong@...obotics.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, manivannanece23@...il.com,
        Jeff Chen <jeff.chen@...ions-semi.com>,
        "Thomas C. Liau" <thomas.liau@...ions-semi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: power: Add Actions Semi S900 SPS

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:11:17PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > > diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/power/owl-s900-powergate.h b/include/dt-bindings/power/owl-s900-powergate.h
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000000..f1aaf761112b
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/include/dt-bindings/power/owl-s900-powergate.h
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
> > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> > 
> > checkpatch.pl warns about this line due to not using /* ... */ syntax
> > for headers. I could fix that up on my own, but it made me realize that
> > you are licensing this file under GPL-2.0+ only, whereas the .dts[i] is
> > supposed to be dual-licensed.
> > 
> > Can you please give your consent to make this
> > 
> > /* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */
> > 
> 
> You can change the license to GPL-2.0+ OR MIT.
> 
> > like my S500 and S700 bindings?
> > 
> > Question: Should it still be GPL-2.0+ or the new GPL-2.0-or-later?
> >
> 
> I think GPL-2.0+ is fine.

So... when I saw this I did wonder why one would knowly choose to use a
deprecated license identifier (https://spdx.org/licenses/ ).

However running `git diff v4.17..v4.18-rc1` through some filters does
indicate that GPL-2.0+ is the more popular choice by 256 to 0! Doesn't
mean you couldn't break the mould though ;-).


Daniel.