linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] clk: meson: use SPDX license identifiers consistently

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1526459441.2897.54.camel@baylibre.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 May 2018 10:30:41 +0200
From:   Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Carlo Caione <carlo@...one.org>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
        Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>
Cc:     linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: meson: use SPDX license identifiers consistently

On Tue, 2018-05-15 at 10:58 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Jerome Brunet (2018-05-15 09:42:29)
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/meson/clk-audio-divider.c b/drivers/clk/meson/clk-audio-divider.c
> > index f7ab5b1db342..ac0743cd0f2f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/meson/clk-audio-divider.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/meson/clk-audio-divider.c
> > @@ -1,18 +1,7 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> 
> This is GPL2 or later.
> 
> >  /*
> >   * Copyright (c) 2017 AmLogic, Inc.
> >   * Author: Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>
> > - *
> > - * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
> > - * under the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License,
> > - * version 2, as published by the Free Software Foundation.
> > - *
> > - * This program is distributed in the hope 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.
> > - *
> > - * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with
> > - * this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
> 
> But this looks like GPL2 only because there isn't an "or later" part of
> the text. Is it intentional to relicense to GPL2+ instead of GPL2 only?

Nope, no re-licensing intended. Thanks a lot for the explanation.
I'll recheck the rest of the patch for this error.

> If so, please add that into the commit text.
>