linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] udf: Fix full name of the GPL

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:   Mon, 23 Jan 2023 16:58:22 +0100
From:   Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@...ow.org>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] udf: Fix full name of the GPL

On Monday, 23 January 2023 16:48:39 CET Jan Kara wrote:
> On Sun 22-01-23 20:16:03, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@...ow.org>
> > ---
> > fs/udf/ecma_167.h | 2 +-
> > fs/udf/osta_udf.h | 2 +-
> > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> Thanks. I've added the patch to my tree.

While I initially saw it as a spelling error, I've since changed my view that 
it would actually be changing the license and I'm not qualified to do that.
See https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/2281101.Yu7Ql3qPJb@prancing-pony/

While it seemed reasonable to *assume* that the GNU General Public License was 
meant, I (now) think that is not sufficient when it comes to legal/license 
material, which this is. I think, but I'm not a lawyer.

So maybe it's better to remove/revert it from your tree?

Sorry,
  Diederik
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)