netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 01/10] Add auxiliary bus support

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAPcyv4j0Xih_wd5R8KYmWv6ty-WKxVbV54HZqr81+UqSm96LzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 Nov 2020 12:24:51 -0800
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>,
        Dave Ertman <david.m.ertman@...el.com>,
        alsa-devel@...a-project.org, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        linux-rdma <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Ranjani Sridharan <ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
        Fred Oh <fred.oh@...ux.intel.com>,
        Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>,
        "Saleem, Shiraz" <shiraz.saleem@...el.com>,
        "Patil, Kiran" <kiran.patil@...el.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/10] Add auxiliary bus support

On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 12:21 PM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 09:12:51AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Per above SPDX is v2 only, so...
> > >
> > > Isn't it default for the Linux kernel?
> >
> > SPDX eliminated the need to guess a default, and MODULE_LICENSE("GPL")
> > implies the "or later" language. The only default assumption is that
> > the license is GPL v2 compatible, those possibilities are myriad, but
> > v2-only is the first preference.
>
> No, MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") does not imply "or later" at all.  Please see
> include/linux/module.h, it means "GPL version 2".
>

Oh, I did, and stopped before getting to:

  "only/or later" distinction is completely irrelevant and does neither
 *replace the proper license identifiers in the corresponding source file

...sorry for the noise.