linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] samples: replace outdated permission statement with SPDX identifiers

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:   Sat, 18 Nov 2017 09:33:01 +0100
From:   Martin Kepplinger <martink@...teo.de>
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] samples: replace outdated permission statement with SPDX
 identifiers

On 2017-11-18 01:13, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 00:43:46 +0100
> Martin Kepplinger <martink@...teo.de> wrote:
> 
>> But Greg, people are listening to you. Please don't give advice in
>> directions that are not clearly correct for Linux. You know you could
>> have simply ack'd the initial mistake-fix in that case. It wouldn't have
>> hurt anybody.
> 
> Sigh, it wasn't my intent to get Greg in trouble.
> 
> Martin...  please don't blame Greg here.  What's going on (IMO) is that
> you've stumbled into something that we have just now begun to figure
> out.  We very much *want* to rip out all that boilerplate, but we don't
> yet have a consensus on the proper way to do it.  We haven't really even
> had the discussion yet.  You've just had the poor luck to wander in at
> the wrong time and become part of that discussion.
> 
> I'll confess that, when I saw your first patch, it crossed my mind to
> answer much like Greg did.  But Greg always gets there first :)
> 

Alright, noone is in trouble already I hope. Maybe I was a little harsh;
sorry Greg. I know less about law than about programming which might
have made me a little nervous here; In the end I want things to work for
Linux.

> The files that you are touching mostly have listed copyright holders in
> them.  Should you feel like putting a bit more energy into this, one
> thing to do could be to copy them on a new posting of the patch and ask
> for acks.  Assuming you get them, we should be able to clean up a bit of
> cruft in a way that's clearly supported by the copyright holders.
> 

Makes sense. Thanks for clearing this up a bit! So as fixing your "own"
files is easier, I'll do that first :)

                         martin