[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201003145307.GA7719@linux.intel.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2020 17:53:07 +0300
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, asapek@...gle.com, bp@...en8.de,
cedric.xing@...el.com, chenalexchen@...gle.com,
conradparker@...gle.com, cyhanish@...gle.com,
dave.hansen@...el.com, haitao.huang@...el.com, kai.huang@...el.com,
kai.svahn@...el.com, kmoy@...gle.com, ludloff@...gle.com,
luto@...nel.org, nhorman@...hat.com, npmccallum@...hat.com,
puiterwijk@...hat.com, rientjes@...gle.com,
sean.j.christopherson@...el.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
yaozhangx@...gle.com, mikko.ylinen@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v39 00/24] Intel SGX foundations
On Sat, Oct 03, 2020 at 04:32:46PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> I might be late to the game, but why are you trying to dual-license the
> new files you are adding in this patch? How will that help anyone?
>
> I have had many talks with Intel about this in the past, and last I
> heard was that when dual-licensing made sense, they would be explicit as
> to why it was happening. Or is my memory failing me?
My true and honest answer is that I cannot recall. Not sure even if it
was like when the driver was still out-of-tree implementation. This
would back to 2016 :-)
But we don't need to dig the exact answr because
➜ linux-tpmdd (next) ✔ git --no-pager grep -e BSD --and \( -e SPDX \) -- "arch/*.[Sc]"
arch/arm64/lib/tishift.S:/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-3-Clause)
Oh darn, I guess this implies that my hands are tied :-) I'll gladly
implement the change.
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
Thank you.
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists