linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] leds: trigger: implement a tty trigger

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: <20200712093155.GA179963@kroah.com>
Date:   Sun, 12 Jul 2020 11:31:55 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>
Cc:     Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
        Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>,
        Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
        kernel@...gutronix.de, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-leds@...r.kernel.org,
        Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] leds: trigger: implement a tty trigger

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 11:07:31AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Sun 2020-07-12 11:02:17, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 10:50:59AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > On Sun 2020-07-12 10:43:52, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 10:24:53AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/leds/trigger/ledtrig-tty.c
> > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,192 @@
> > > > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > > > > 
> > > > > 2.0+ is preffered.
> > > > 
> > > > No it is not, that's up to the developer.
> > > 
> > > For code I maintain, yes it is.
> > 
> > That's up to the developer of the code, not the maintainer, as the
> > maintainer is not the copyright holder of it.  For new files, it is up
> > to the author of that code.  No maintainer should impose a license rule
> > like this on their subsystem, that's just not ok at all.  The only
> > "rule" is that it is compatible with GPLv2, nothing else.
> 
> No, see for example device tree rules.

Note, I don't agree with that rule, and if you have noticed, it's not
really enforced.

> Plus, IIRC it was you who asked the developer to "doublecheck with
> their legal" when you seen GPL-2.0+.  You can't really prevent me from
> doing the same.

Asking to verify that a specific license is what they really want it to
be and they know the ramifications of it is NOT the same as saying "For
code in the subsystem I maintain it has to be GPLv2+".

thanks,

greg k-h