linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/9] rtc: cros-ec: Switch to SPDX identifier.

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: <20180625073459.GA15406@piout.net>
Date:   Mon, 25 Jun 2018 09:34:59 +0200
From:   Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
To:     Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc:     Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@...omium.org>, kernel@...labora.com,
        linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org, Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] rtc: cros-ec: Switch to SPDX identifier.

On 25/06/2018 09:58:32+0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 08:59:52PM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > On 05/06/2018 20:51:06+0200, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote:
> > > Hi Alexandre,
> > > 
> > > On 05/06/18 11:46, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > > > On 05/06/2018 11:22:05+0200, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote:
> > > >> Adopt the SPDX license identifier headers to ease license compliance
> > > >> management.
> > > >>
> > > >> Signed-off-by: Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>
> > > >> ---
> > > >>
> > > >>  drivers/rtc/rtc-cros-ec.c | 21 +++++----------------
> > > >>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> > > >>
> > > > Applied, thanks.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Looks like all the ChromeOS drivers should be licensed as GPL v2 only. There was
> > > a mismatch between what the header says and the MODULE_LICENSE and I wrongly
> > > assumed that the MODULE_LICENSE is the one I should follow. So could you not
> > > apply this patch for now and I'll send another version with the correct license?
> > > 
> > 
> > Hum, ok, this seemed to be the correct way to solve the mismatch to me.
> 
> No, the license text trumps the MODULE_LICENSE() string.  Please revert
> this, or fix it up to be correct.
> 

Isn't it correct in Linus' tree?


-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com