linux-kernel - Re: Invalid License ID: GPL-3.0 for arch/mips/boot/dts/loongson/loongson64-2k1000.dtsi

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YH8hR5LkA9X5Eyfa@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Tue, 20 Apr 2021 18:45:27 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
Cc:     Qing Zhang <zhangqing@...ngson.cn>,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
        Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com>,
        linux-spdx@...r.kernel.org,
        "open list:BROADCOM NVRAM DRIVER" <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Ming Wang <wangming01@...ngson.cn>
Subject: Re: Invalid License ID: GPL-3.0 for
 arch/mips/boot/dts/loongson/loongson64-2k1000.dtsi

On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 11:39:04AM +0200, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> Dear Qing,
> 
> ./scripts/spdxcheck.py reports:
> 
> arch/mips/boot/dts/loongson/loongson64-2k1000.dtsi: 1:28 Invalid
> License ID: GPL-3.0
> 
> You have contributed this file with commit b1a792601f26 ("MIPS:
> Loongson64: DeviceTree for Loongson-2K1000") to the current
> linux-next.
> 
> Do you intend to contribute this under this non-default license
> (GPL-3.0) for the kernel project or did you simply mean the default
> license GPL-2.0?

Ouch...  That's quite likely to be impossible to distribute, since the
requirements of v2 and v3 are mutually incompatible and quite a bit of
the kernel is under v2-only, not v2-or-any-later-version.

Seriously, folks - talk to lawyers; if the result is *NOT* a mere aggregation
(i.e. is derived work wrt the kernel proper), you are in a copyright violation.

Moreover, if anything in that file is derived from others' work, you can't
use GPL-3.0 unless the terms for everything it's derived from allow
redistribution under GPL-3.0.  Anything derived from others' GPL-2.0 work
(as opposed to GPL-2.0-or-later one) can't be relicensed to GPL-3.0 at
all.