[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230613031006.GD883@sol.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 20:10:06 -0700
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
Cc: palmer@...belt.com, paul.walmsley@...ive.com,
aou@...s.berkeley.edu, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
davem@...emloft.net, conor.dooley@...rochip.com,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, christoph.muellner@...ll.eu,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@...ll.eu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] RISC-V: crypto: add accelerated GCM GHASH
implementation
Hi Heiko,
On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 11:04:42PM +0200, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/crypto/ghash-riscv64-zbc.pl b/arch/riscv/crypto/ghash-riscv64-zbc.pl
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..677c438a44bf
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/riscv/crypto/ghash-riscv64-zbc.pl
> @@ -0,0 +1,427 @@
> +#! /usr/bin/env perl
> +# Copyright 2022 The OpenSSL Project Authors. All Rights Reserved.
> +#
> +# Licensed under the Apache License 2.0 (the "License"). You may not use
> +# this file except in compliance with the License. You can obtain a copy
> +# in the file LICENSE in the source distribution or at
> +# https://www.openssl.org/source/license.html
> +
> +# This file is dual-licensed and is also available under the following
> +# terms:
> +#
> +# Copyright (c) 2023, Christoph Müllner <christoph.muellner@...ll.eu>
> +# All rights reserved.
> +#
> +# Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> +# modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
> +# are met:
> +# 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> +# notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> +# 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> +# notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> +# documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
Is this worded properly for a dual license? The paragraph about the Apache
License makes it sound like the Apache License must always be complied with:
"You may not use this file except in compliance with the License."
So I worry that this could be interpreted as:
Apache-2.0 AND BSD-2-Clause
instead of
Apache-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause
It needs to be the latter.
So I think the file header needs to be clarified w.r.t. the dual license.
Side note: can you please also include a SPDX-License-Identifier?
- Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists