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: <20180502142544.GB10928@kroah.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 May 2018 07:25:44 -0700
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>
Cc:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>, Dan Haab <dhaab@...ul.com>,
        Dan Haab <riproute@...il.com>,
        Jon Mason <jonmason@...adcom.com>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        "Luis R . Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: dts: BCM5301X: Relicense most DTS files to the GPL
 2.0+ / MIT

On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 04:11:02PM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
> 
> These files were created and ever touched by a group of three people
> only: Dan, Hauke and me. They were licensed under GNU/GPL or ISC.
> 
> Introducing and discussing SPDX-License-Identifier resulted in a
> conclusion that ISC is a not recommended license (see also a
> license-rules.rst). Moveover an old e-mail from Alan Cox was pointed
> which explained that dual licensing is a safer solution than depending
> on a common compatibility belief.
> 
> This commit switches most of BCM5301X DTS files to dual licensing using:
> 1) GPL 2.0+ to make sure they are compatible with Linux kernel
> 2) MIT to allow sharing with more permissive projects
> Both licenses belong to the preferred ones (see LICENSES/preferred/).
> 
> An attempt to relicense remaining files will be made separately and will
> require approve from more/other developers.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>

Many thanks for doing this, it makes the license "confusion" a bit less
now :)

Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ