linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 3/6] selftests: add tests

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]

Date:   Sun, 22 May 2022 16:47:01 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, tj@...nel.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jeyu@...nel.org, shuah@...nel.org,
        bvanassche@....org, dan.j.williams@...el.com, joe@...ches.com,
        keescook@...omium.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, minchan@...nel.org,
        linux-spdx@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 3/6] selftests: add tests_sysfs module

On Sun, May 22, 2022 at 04:37:19PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Greg,
> 
> On Fri, Dec 03 2021 at 16:29, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 11:44:57AM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> 
> sorry for missing this thread. I came accross it now as I'm looking into
> the licensing mess again.
> 
> >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later OR copyleft-next-0.3.1
> >
> > Again, sorry, but no, I am going to object to this license as you are
> > only accessing a GPL-v2-only api.  Any other license on a file that
> > interacts with that, especially for core stuff like testing the
> > functionality of this code, needs to have that same license.  Sorry.
> 
> That's a bogus argument. First of all the code is dual licensed and
> second we have enough code in the kernel which is licensed MIT/BSD and
> happily can access the GPL-v2-only APIs.
> 
> Aside of that we have already code in the kernel which is dual licensed
> 
>      GPL-2.0-or-later OR copyleft-next-0.3.1
> 
> We just can't make it SPDX clean because copyleft-next-0.3.1 is not in
> LICENSING.
> 
> While I agree that we want to keep the number of licenses as small as
> possible, we cannot really dictate which dual licensing options a
> submitter selects unless the license is GPL-2.0-only incompatible, which
> copyleft-next is not.
> 
> Can we just get over this, add the license with the SPDX identifier and
> move on?

>From what I recall, I had technical reasons I didn't take this series,
but that was a long time ago and I would be glad to review it again if
it were rebased and resubmitted after the next merge window is closed.

thanks,

greg k-h