linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 02/17] zinc: introduce minimal cryptography library

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180825161624.GB22750@lunn.ch>
Date:   Sat, 25 Aug 2018 18:16:24 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        davem@...emloft.net, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Samuel Neves <sneves@....uc.pt>,
        Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/17] zinc: introduce minimal cryptography library

> It seems you still don't explicitly clarify anywhere in the source itself that
> the copyright holders of the code from OpenSSL have relicensed it under GPLv2.
> I only see a GPLv2 license slapped on the files, yet no such license is presence
> in the OpenSSL originals, at least in the one I checked.  If you did receive
> explicit permission, then you should include an explicit clarification in each
> file like the one in arch/arm/crypto/sha1-armv4-large.S.

Better yet, get the copyright holders to publicly send a
signed-off-by: or acked-by: so it is clear they agree to this.

	       Andrew