linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: freescale: Update to use 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]

Message-ID: <CADRPPNQCJ32KOvaO1RRPkxjep9WbXRVZm5CsdLB0k+6p4qRr+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Jun 2018 13:50:04 -0500
From:   Li Yang <leoyang.li@....com>
To:     Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>
Cc:     Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: freescale: Update to use SPDX identifiers

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com> wrote:
> Hi Li,
>
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 3:28 PM, Li Yang <leoyang.li@....com> wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1012a-frdm.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1012a-frdm.dts
>> index 7286b1e..f90c040 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1012a-frdm.dts
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1012a-frdm.dts
>> @@ -1,45 +1,9 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT)
>
> Here you use GPL-2.0+
>
>>  /*
>>   * Device Tree file for Freescale LS1012A Freedom Board.
>>   *
>>   * Copyright 2016 Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.
>>   *
>> - * This file is dual-licensed: you can use it either under the terms
>> - * of the GPLv2 or the X11 license, at your option. Note that this dual
>
> ,but the original text says  GPL-2.0, not  GPL-2.0+, so there is a mismatch.

The original text has a conflict probably because some people didn't
regard GPLv2+ as a license name.  But the following detailed
explanation mentioned "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."  I think we should honor the more verbosed
text than the briefing(same way for X11 vs MIT).

Regards,
Leo