linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] usb: raw-gadget: upgrade license identifier

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: <CA+fCnZcwkmw-phG2nHW=4-dxwxUy3AGFsppk==x96uwJRSEG2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 26 Dec 2021 15:50:43 +0100
From:   Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...il.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        andrey.konovalov@...ux.dev, Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>,
        USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-spdx@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: raw-gadget: upgrade license identifier

On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 3:02 PM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2021-12-26 at 14:19 +0100, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > I wonder if checkpatch could alert about considering GPL-2.0+ when
> > adding new files.
>
> No. Licensing is up to the author/submitter.

You're right. However, knowingly choosing a license requires that the
author doesn't forget to look into the difference and understand it.

When I contributed this code, I didn't realize that GPL-2.0 and
GPL-2.0+ are different things. I was focused on the excitement of
contributing a new USB gadget driver.

What would have allowed my to not overlook this, is that if throughout
the _process_ of contributing a new module, something would _ask_ me:
"Is this really the license you want to use?".

Within my process of submitting kernel patches, that could have been
either checkpatch or an email bot.

I don't insist that this must be done by checkpatch; this could be
done by another entity. However, it would be nice to see this as an
explicit step of a standardized contribution process.

Thanks!