linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] zram: zram_drv: add SPDX license identifiers

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: <bc5b21934b2b871d2745dab8f469ce6458222594.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Fri, 24 Dec 2021 08:33:13 -0800
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Miko Larsson <mikoxyzzz@...il.com>, minchan@...nel.org,
        ngupta@...are.org, senozhatsky@...omium.org, axboe@...nel.dk,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] zram: zram_drv: add SPDX license identifiers

(resending, original sent with an html part, unknown how)

On Fri, 2021-12-24 at 14:13 +0100, Miko Larsson wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-12-21 at 01:33 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > GPL v2 is a permissive license and this SPDX tag should probably be
> > 
> > // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later or BSD-3-Clause
> 
> It shouldn't be GPL-2.0-or-later, because the original copyright notice
> doesn't have an "or later" clause.

On its face, a GPL-2.0 license notice grant does _not_ need to
include any 'or later' content.

The GPL 2.0 license is permissive, it's at the _grantee's_ option.

I believe Nitin Gupta, the original author and submitter, should
declare whether or not he intended the license to include the
'or later' option.

Nitin?

Did you intend to use GPL-2.0 only and exclude GPL-3.0 or any later
version?