linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rust: macros: add `paste!` proc macro

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CANiq72n03HZuduebASJ=Yk6m-e75humB7gonQC46vhcN8kSUug@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Aug 2023 22:32:21 +0200
From:   Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
        Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
        Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...il.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
        Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>,
        Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...sung.com>,
        Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rust: macros: add `paste!` proc macro

On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 5:46 PM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> If he, as the copyright owner, wants to take the code and do anything
> else with it, under any other license, they can.  There's nothing
> preventing them from doing that, a dual license is not needed (as long
> as you don't take any changes that anyone else made under a different
> license.)

Yeah, definitely. I imagine some developers have their reasons, e.g.
they may prefer to have the same one everywhere so that people reading
the code anywhere know it is more permissively licensed elsewhere (and
that dual license is popular for Rust projects).

> Which is one of the main reasons dual license isn't really needed, if
> the author wants the code to go somewhere else also, they are free to do
> so as they own the copyright.
>
> So please think carefully about mixing licenses like this, it's almost
> never needed, and keeping the files with multiple licenses is a major
> pain to handle over time.
>
> good luck!

Let's keep things simple then. I will replace it with `GPL-2.0` since
Gary was OK with that one too.

Thanks!

Cheers,
Miguel