| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 13:40:56 -0800 From: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de> To: Vinay Sawal <vinaysawal@...il.com> Cc: Belisko Marek <marek.belisko@...il.com>, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staging: bcm: Bcmnet: fixed checkpatch script issues On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 01:21:28PM -0800, Vinay Sawal wrote: > You're correct. The script checkpatch didn't complain about the > missing license header. Where did you get that license header from? Are you sure you were allowed to license the code in that specific way? > But since the license header was missing, I > added it. I should have listed it in the patch comments. No, you should have done it in a separate patch, if you do that. Remember, one patch per "thing you do" is the rule. > Isn't it a requirement to have the GPL license header in every file ? No. > If true, maybe the script can be enhanced to check for missing license > header. That's not true, the overall license of the kernel covers the license of the file, if not explicitly stated. And you were stating that the license of this file is _different_ from the license of the kernel overall, so you had better have the legal right to be doing that. Do you? thanks, greg k-h -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists