linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] media: usbvision: remove unneeded DRIVER

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20171117150102.1f5faeda@vento.lan>
Date:   Fri, 17 Nov 2017 15:01:02 -0200
From:   Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...pensource.com>
To:     Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] media: usbvision: remove unneeded DRIVER_LICENSE
 #define

Em Fri, 17 Nov 2017 16:01:41 +0100
Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com> escreveu:

> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
> <mchehab@...pensource.com> wrote:
> > Em Fri, 17 Nov 2017 15:18:26 +0100
> > Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> escreveu:
> >  
> >> There is no need to #define the license of the driver, just put it in
> >> the MODULE_LICENSE() line directly as a text string.
> >>
> >> This allows tools that check that the module license matches the source
> >> code license to work properly, as there is no need to unwind the
> >> unneeded dereference.
> >>
> >> Cc: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>
> >> Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>
> >> Cc: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
> >> Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
> >> Cc: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
> >> Reported-by: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

Acked-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>

> >> ---
> >>  drivers/media/usb/usbvision/usbvision-video.c | 3 +--
> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/media/usb/usbvision/usbvision-video.c b/drivers/media/usb/usbvision/usbvision-video.c
> >> index 960272d3c924..0f5954a1fea2 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/media/usb/usbvision/usbvision-video.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/media/usb/usbvision/usbvision-video.c
> >> @@ -72,7 +72,6 @@
> >>  #define DRIVER_NAME "usbvision"
> >>  #define DRIVER_ALIAS "USBVision"
> >>  #define DRIVER_DESC "USBVision USB Video Device Driver for Linux"
> >> -#define DRIVER_LICENSE "GPL"
> >>  #define USBVISION_VERSION_STRING "0.9.11"
> >>
> >>  #define      ENABLE_HEXDUMP  0       /* Enable if you need it */
> >> @@ -141,7 +140,7 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(radio_nr, "Set radio device number (/dev/radioX).  Default: -1
> >>  /* Misc stuff */
> >>  MODULE_AUTHOR(DRIVER_AUTHOR);
> >>  MODULE_DESCRIPTION(DRIVER_DESC);
> >> -MODULE_LICENSE(DRIVER_LICENSE);
> >> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");  
> >
> > Makes sense to me, but, if we look at the header of this file:
> >
> >  * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> >  * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> >  * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
> >  * (at your option) any later version.
> >
> > Its license is actually GPL 2.0+
> >
> > So, I would actually change it to:
> >
> > MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");  
> 
> Mauro:
> 
> actually even if it sounds weird the module.h doc [1] is clear on this topic:
> 
>  * "GPL" [GNU Public License v2 or later]
>  * "GPL v2" [GNU Public License v2]
> 
> So it should be "GPL" IMHO.
> 
> 
> [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/include/linux/module.h?id=refs/tags/v4.10#n175
> 

Oh! Yeah, you're right. I would add that on the Kernel documentation
somewhere, perhaps with the new document that Thomas is writing
about SPFX. 

The Documentation/kernel-hacking/hacking.rst doc mentions 
MODULE_LICENSE, but doesn't define the expected values for it.

Thanks,
Mauro