[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOFm3uExqnB45SDFKJo811aaEfeaEC02TUdpmPj1Wq9QEWqy_g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 18:03:24 +0200
From: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>
To: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ALSA <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>, Mark <broonie@...nel.org>,
Takashi <tiwai@...e.de>,
Pierre <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
Sanyog Kale <sanyog.r.kale@...el.com>,
Shreyas NC <shreyas.nc@...el.com>, patches.audio@...el.com,
alan@...ux.intel.com,
Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.cirrus.com>,
Sagar Dharia <sdharia@...eaurora.org>,
srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org, plai@...eaurora.org,
Sudheer Papothi <spapothi@...eaurora.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/14] soundwire: Add SoundWire bus type
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 08:33:18AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/soundwire/bus_type.c b/drivers/soundwire/bus_type.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..a14d1de80afa
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/drivers/soundwire/bus_type.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,229 @@
>> +/*
>> + * This file is provided under a dual BSD/GPLv2 license. When using or
>> + * redistributing this file, you may do so under either license.
>> + *
>> + * GPL LICENSE SUMMARY
>> + *
>> + * Copyright(c) 2015-17 Intel Corporation.
>> + *
>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>> + * it under the terms of version 2 of the GNU General Public License as
>> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>> + *
>> + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
>> + * WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>> + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
>> + * General Public License for more details.
>> + *
>> + * BSD LICENSE
>> + *
>> + * Copyright(c) 2015-17 Intel Corporation.
>> + *
>> + * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
>> + * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
>> + * are met:
>> + *
>> + * * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>> + * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>> + * * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>> + * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
>> + * the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
>> + * distribution.
>> + * * Neither the name of Intel Corporation nor the names of its
>> + * contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived
>> + * from this software without specific prior written permission.
>> + *
>> + * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
>> + * "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
>> + * LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
>> + * A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
>> + * OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
>> + * SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT
>> + * LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE,
>> + * DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
>> + * THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
>> + * (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
>> + * OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
>
> Are you _sure_ that code that interacts with the driver core can have a
> dual-license here? Have you explained to lawyers what you are doing
> here (wrapping gpl-only symbols with non-gpl-only exports)?
>
> And why dual license something that will only ever work on Linux?
>
> And finally, put a real SPDX header up there so that people don't have
> to parse that horrid amount of text to try to determine exactly what
> that license is.
Vinod:
It is hard to parse for people ... but it is quite hard for tools to catch
this too. This license notice is so peculiar and special that I had to
make a special detection rule just for it [1] in my tool :|
Please have mercy: could you not pick something simpler?
[1] https://github.com/nexB/scancode-toolkit/blob/develop/src/licensedcode/data/rules/gpl-2.0_or_bsd-new33.RULE
--
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne
Powered by blists - more mailing lists