linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] random: add proper SPDX header

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 10 Feb 2022 18:01:18 +0100
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-spdx@...r.kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] random: add proper SPDX header

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 6:00 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 05:53:33PM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > Thanks for the review. Comments are inline below.
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 5:49 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > Where did the "or later" come from?  I don't see that in the original
> > > text.
> >
> > Yea, this part seems a little bit ambiguous:
> >
> > > > - * ALTERNATIVELY, this product may be distributed under the terms of
> > > > - * the GNU General Public License, in which case the provisions of the GPL are
> > > > - * required INSTEAD OF the above restrictions.  (This clause is
> > > > - * necessary due to a potential bad interaction between the GPL and
> > > > - * the restrictions contained in a BSD-style copyright.)
> > >
> > > I do not see a "or later" here.
> >
> > I don't see a "2.0" either. I think we can infer from context that it
> > couldn't have been < 2.0. So in the absence of a number, maybe this
> > means >= 2.0, and hence "or later"? Or since at the time it probably
> > meant 2.0, do we infer this to mean == 2.0? I really have no idea,
> > which is why I'm glad this list exists.
> >
> > It sounds like your perspective is that this is == 2.0?
>
> Without a "or later" it has to be "2.0" as that is what the overall
> kernel license is.  That's what we did for the big SPDX sweep, so that
> keeps things being decided in the same manner.

Sounds good. v3 incoming.

Jason