netdev - Re: [PATCH v5 net-next 3/5] amd-xgbe: add support for new XPCS routines

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <ae48aa95-15c5-09a0-a24c-eefb8c1b35f7@amd.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 01:30:40 +0530
From: Raju Rangoju <Raju.Rangoju@....com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
 pabeni@...hat.com, Shyam-sundar.S-k@....com,
 Sudheesh Mavila <sudheesh.mavila@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 net-next 3/5] amd-xgbe: add support for new XPCS
 routines



On 2/15/2024 1:15 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 05:27:30PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> Hi Greg!
>>
>> Would you be able to give us your "no" vs "whatever" on the license
>> shenanigans below? First time I'm spotting this sort of a thing,
>> although it looks like we already have copies of this exact text
>> in the tree :(
> 
> Ugh, that's a mess:
> 
>>
>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 21:18:40 +0530 Raju Rangoju wrote:
>>> + * AMD 10Gb Ethernet driver
> 
> First off, checkpatch should have complained about no SPDX line on this
> file, so that's a big NACK from me for this patch to start with.  Just
> don't do that.
> 
> second, this whole thing can be distilled down to a single "GPLv2-only"
> spdx line.  Don't create special, custom, licenses like "modified BSD"
> if you expect a file to be able to be merged into the kernel tree,
> that's not ok.
> 
> AMD developers, please work with your lawyers to clean this all up, and
> remove ALL of that boilerplate license text, all you need is one simple
> SPDX line that describes the license.
>

Hi Greg,

Thanks for your inputs on this. We will work with our legal team to see 
if we can use GPLv2 instead of dual license.

Thanks,
Raju

> Also, I will push back hard and say "no dual license files, UNLESS you
> have a lawyer sign-off on the patch" as the issues involved in doing
> that are non-trivial, and require work on the legal side of your company
> to ensure that they work properly.  That is work your lawyer is signing
> up to do, so they need to be responsible for it.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h