linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] pinctrl: Add driver for Alphascale asm9260 pinctrl

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]

Message-ID: <1428313265.634.112.camel@x220>
Date:	Mon, 06 Apr 2015 11:41:05 +0200
From:	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
To:	Oleksij Rempel <linux@...pel-privat.de>
Cc:	linus.walleij@...aro.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] pinctrl: Add driver for Alphascale asm9260
 pinctrl

On Mon, 2015-04-06 at 10:38 +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> If you won't to say: "You have a mismatch between header and
> MODULE_LICENSE, please make sure it will match."
> You saying some thing like this: "I was right last time. Make module
> License like I saying."

No, that's not what I wrote.

> I'm confuse, what is your actual point? Do you trying to prove some thing?

My point is that there's a mismatch between the license described in the
comment at the top of this file and the ident used in the
MODULE_LICENSE() macro. In my comments on v2 I wrote:
    By the way, you probably want to use "GPL v2" as the license ident
    [...].

In this v3 I noticed the same mismatch (which was not surprising because
you already stated that "GPL" actually did match what's stated at the
comment in the top of this file). Therefor I wrote:
    So only "GPL v2" matches what's found in the comment at top of this
    file.

There now seem to be a few options:
- change either the comment at the top of this file or the license ident
used in MODULE_LICENSE() to make them actually match;
- show that I misread the comment at top of this file;
- or show that my reading of module.h is incorrect.

(Another option would be a patch that somehow merges the "GPL" and "GPL
v2" license idents. That patch would put an end to discussions like the
one we're having here. I'm _not_ volunteering to submit it.)

Thanks,


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/