linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] dt-bindings: gpio: Add a header file for Amlogic C3 SoCs

Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Date:   Fri, 14 Jul 2023 16:43:15 +0800
From:   Kelvin Zhang <kelvin.zhang@...ogic.com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>,
        Huqiang Qin <huqiang.qin@...ogic.com>
Cc:     linus.walleij@...aro.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
        neil.armstrong@...aro.org, khilman@...libre.com,
        jbrunet@...libre.com, martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com,
        brgl@...ev.pl, andy@...nel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] dt-bindings: gpio: Add a header file for Amlogic
 C3 SoCs

On 2023/7/12 13:56, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 
> On 11/07/2023 20:05, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>>>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/gpio/amlogic-c3-gpio.h
>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
>>>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR MIT) */
>>>> Any reason to deviate from the usual license terms for bindings, which is
>>>> "GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause"?
>>>
>>> I initially used the license commonly used by Amlogic (reference: meson-s4-gpio.h):
>>> ```
>>> /* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */
>>> ```
>>>
>>> But when I checked the patch, some warnings appeared:
>>> ```
>>> WARNING: DT binding headers should be licensed (GPL-2.0-only OR .*)
>>> #37: FILE: include/dt-bindings/gpio/amlogic-c3-gpio.h:1:
>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */
>>> ```
>>> So I followed the prompts and changed the license.
>>>
>>> Can I ignore this warning and use the (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) license?
>>
>> If the tools are happy then I suppose you are okay.. I'll leave that to
>> Rob or Krzysztof, but if you have a reason for diverging that seems fine
>> to me.
> 
> It is very weird that company wants GPLv3 and even weirder that it
> agrees for GPLv4 and GPLv5 (GPLv5 might force Amlogic to do some
> interesting things...). I am pretty sure company lawyers don't want it
> and just do not understand licenses or someone forgot to actually check
> it. Anyway, it's fine for Linux kernel, if you really need it.
> 

That's true.
We will follow the checkpatch suggestion.
Thanks!

> However the argument was "meson-s4-gpio.h" has it, which is not really
> correct argument or accurate. Is it derivative work that you need the
> same license? If not, why presence of something causes you to do the
> same without thinking?
> 
> If Amlogic requires GPLv3 or GPL4 or GPLv2000, please confirm it here
> with your official email. Otherwise, if it is not a derivative work
> confirm that. Otherwise just go with what checkpatch asks you.
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-amlogic mailing list
> linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-amlogic

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