linux-kernel - GPL-1.0-licensed code for files drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt7986* included with commit ec97d23c8e22 ("clk: mediatek: add mt7986 clock support")

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAKXUXMy8ywQXqqmOvvm9wKL_ikixRJOFgCcgu4OdPUPhjq6MhA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Jan 2022 10:56:58 +0100
From:   Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
To:     Sam Shih <sam.shih@...iatek.com>, Ryder Lee <ryder.lee@...nel.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-spdx@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: GPL-1.0-licensed code for files drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt7986*
 included with commit ec97d23c8e22 ("clk: mediatek: add mt7986 clock support")

Dear Sam,

Thanks for contributing the mt7986 clock support to the kernel
repository with commit ec97d23c8e22 ("clk: mediatek: add mt7986 clock
support").

You have marked the files below with the GPL-1.0 License, which
./scripts/spdxcheck.py identifies and warns about:

drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt7986-apmixed.c: 1:28 Invalid License ID: GPL-1.0
drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt7986-infracfg.c: 1:28 Invalid License ID: GPL-1.0
drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-mt7986-topckgen.c: 1:28 Invalid License ID: GPL-1.0

The kernel's licensing rules are described here:

https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/license-rules.html#kernel-licensing

The GPL-1.0 is a deprecated license in the kernel repository.

Driver code that is licensed with GPL-1.0 might not be compatible with
GPL-2.0. I am not a lawyer, and we probably do not want to require all
users of your driver code to needlessly involve a lawyer to get such a
statement on license compatibility.

Do you really intend to license this code under GPL-1.0 and are you
aware of all the consequences for other developers and users? Or is
this a mistake and you intend to license it under the kernel's
standard GPL-2.0 license?

Best regards,

Lukas