[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <13213304ac049113655ab8fe1bae76cc84a3330e.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2025 15:19:02 -0500
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, Luis Chamberlain
<mcgrof@...nel.org>, Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@...e.com>, Daniel Gomez
<da.gomez@...nel.org>, Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>, "Jason A .
Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, Stephan
Mueller <smueller@...onox.de>, Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>, Ignat
Korchagin <ignat@...udflare.com>, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
keyrings@...r.kernel.org, linux-modules@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 2/9] crypto: Add ML-DSA/Dilithium verify support
On Mon, 2025-11-17 at 19:52 +0000, David Howells wrote:
> Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > In comparison, BoringSSL has an entire implementation of ML-DSA,
> > ...
>
> ... which cannot be used in the kernel due to the licence.
The licence problem is not insurmountable. There are now real lawyers
(not just me) prepared to stand up and say Apache-2 is GPL-2
compatible:
https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj/vol40/iss3/2/
But even if you don't accept that, Google keeps effective joint
ownership of the code through their CLA and so could grant a dual
licence to the kernel anyway without needing to refer to any
contributors.
Regards,
James
Powered by blists - more mailing lists