linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/8] crypto: Convert dual BSD 3-Clause/GPL 2.0 boilerplate to SPDX identifier

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: <CAMj1kXGnzphm5Wyz7RfZdWVxPnEihR0NGy5mFs4neQM+7EfEGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 8 Jun 2023 10:37:33 +0200
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To:     Richard Fontana <rfontana@...hat.com>
Cc:     Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Franziska Naepelt <franziska.naepelt@...glemail.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linux SPDX Licenses <linux-spdx@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Janitors <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Crypto <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
        Alexander Kjeldaas <astor@...t.no>,
        Herbert Valerio Riedel <hvr@...lab.org>,
        Kyle McMartin <kyle@...ian.org>,
        "Adam J . Richter" <adam@...drasil.com>,
        Dr Brian Gladman <brg@...dman.me.uk>,
        Stephan Mueller <smueller@...onox.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] crypto: Convert dual BSD 3-Clause/GPL 2.0 boilerplate
 to SPDX identifier

On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 at 16:38, Richard Fontana <rfontana@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 1:42 AM Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Replace license boilerplate for dual BSD-3-Clause/GPL 2.0 (only or
> > later) with corresponding SPDX license identifier.
>
> This is at least the fourth or fifth time (I'm losing track) where you
> have incorrectly assumed a particular non-GPL license text matches a
> particular SPDX identifier without (apparently) checking.
>

What exactly does 'checking' entail here? There is no guidance in
Documentation/process/license-rules.rst on how to perform this
comparison.

Also, checkpatch now complains about missing SPDX identifiers, which
is what triggered this effort. Should it stop doing that?

> Bagas, I urge that you learn more about the nature of SPDX identifiers
> before submitting any further patches at least involving replacement
> of non-GPL notices with SPDX identifiers. For this unprecedented
> license notice replacement initiative to have any legitimacy it must
> attempt to apply SPDX identifiers correctly.
>

Since we're in language pedantic mode: it must do more than attempt,
it must apply them correctly, period.

Arguably, this is an 'attempt to apply SPDX identifiers correctly' on
Bagas's part, which apparently falls short (and I may be guilty of the
same for some arch crypto code)

So what is the ambition here: do we just leave the ambiguous ones as-is?