linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] dt-bindings: clock: qcom: Relicense to GPL2 + BSD

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]

Message-ID: <YofgAd/nAejaATli@gerhold.net>
Date:   Fri, 20 May 2022 20:37:53 +0200
From:   Stephan Gerhold <stephan@...hold.net>
To:     Robert Foss <robert.foss@...aro.org>
Cc:     agross@...nel.org, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        krzk+dt@...nel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] dt-bindings: clock: qcom: Relicense to GPL2 + BSD

On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 02:44:47PM +0200, Robert Foss wrote:
> Qualcomm has given permission for all the dt-bindings to be dual
> licensed. All of the Linaro authored bindings are easy to change, in
> terms of the permissions & copyrights, so they've been bundled in this
> commit.
> 
> Additionally clean up the syntax of some of the copyright statements.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Robert Foss <robert.foss@...aro.org>
> ---
> 
> There are more Qcom bindings that should have the license updated
> to GPL2+BSD, but since they haven't been authored or copyrighted
> by Linaro, I think I'll have to hunt down the authors individually.
> 
>  include/dt-bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-msm8998.h          | 2 +-
>  include/dt-bindings/clock/qcom,rpmcc.h                | 2 +-
>  include/dt-bindings/clock/qcom,rpmh.h                 | 6 ++++--
> 

At least these 3 have contributors outside Qualcomm and Linaro.
Doesn't this mean you would still need to contact all of them
and see if they are fine with relicensing their contribution?

I don't want to make this more complicated than necessary, but it's
probably better to be careful when it comes to licensing stuff...

(Although personally I think it feels a bit weird to discuss copyright
 for a bunch of "numbered names"...)

Thanks,
Stephan