linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] checkpatch: add missing bindings license check

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:   Tue, 21 Mar 2023 16:53:37 -0500
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Dmitry Rokosov <ddrokosov@...rdevices.ru>
Cc:     krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org, apw@...onical.com, joe@...ches.com,
        dwaipayanray1@...il.com, lukas.bulwahn@...il.com,
        kernel@...rdevices.ru, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        rockosov@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] checkpatch: add missing bindings license check

On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 11:33:50PM +0300, Dmitry Rokosov wrote:
> All headers from 'include/dt-bindings/' must be verified by checkpatch
> together with Documentation bindings, because all of them are part of
> the whole DT bindings system.
> 
> The requirement is dual licensed and matching pattern:
>     /GPL-2\.0(?:-only|-or-later|\+)? (?:OR|or) BSD-2-Clause/

This is not correct. The headers can and should be licensed like the dts 
files which are (unfortunately) all over the place and differ from the 
bindings.

Also, GPL-2.0-or-later is neither desired nor encouraged. 

Rob