On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 01:41:34PM -0600, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > > > > Currently, it is dual licensed with GPLv2.0 and BSD. But Pierre brought > > > up > > > > a concern about this conflicting with all the exports in the file being > > > > GPLv2.0. Should this be fixed to change the license to GPLv2.0 only? > > > > Appreciate your help in this regard. > > > > > > Why ask a developer a legal question, don't you all have a whole huge > > > legal department who knows all of this type of thing really really well? > > > > > > Would you ask a programmer a medical question? > > > > > > That being said, think about trying to justify the existance of a BSD > > > licensed file trying to access gpl-only symbols, why in the world would > > > this even be a question? Why have it dual licensed at all when I was > > > told that Intel was NOT going to do this anymore for any kernel code? > > > > > Thanks for your patience and clarification. > > We discovered the discrepancy while vetting the licenses in the files > > again. Something we should be a bit more careful about moving forward. > > Sorry for the trouble! > > Indeed it's not our intention to use dual-licensing for debugfs at all. > > Please treat this thread as a desire to be transparent with maintainers > about a miss rather than an evil scheme to work around GPL. > > Ranjani and I discovered the issue only a couple of hours ago while moving > code around. I don't have any explanation for this other than a review > oversight where we saw the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL and not the SPDX line. It's a > mistake, not a feature. > > I just checked the history and all the changes were made by Intel, except > for your change "ASoC: SOF: no need to check return value of debugfs_create > functions", and 2 minor other fixes for memory leaks. > > We'll immediately change the license to GPLv2 only, move the code in a > dedicated module that's GPLv2 only, and scan the rest of the > Intel-contributed parts to make sure we don't have this mistake in other > places. Don't create a new module, unless your lawyers say you have to do so. That way lies madness... Why is this code dual-licensed in the first place anyway? It only will work on Linux, right? Anyway, I thought Intel had stopped doing this, just changing the license on the one file should be sufficient for now. But again, I am not your lawyer, go talk to yours before doing anything. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
