Hi Heiko, On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 11:04:42PM +0200, Heiko Stuebner wrote: > diff --git a/arch/riscv/crypto/ghash-riscv64-zbc.pl b/arch/riscv/crypto/ghash-riscv64-zbc.pl > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..677c438a44bf > --- /dev/null > +++ b/arch/riscv/crypto/ghash-riscv64-zbc.pl > @@ -0,0 +1,427 @@ > +#! /usr/bin/env perl > +# Copyright 2022 The OpenSSL Project Authors. All Rights Reserved. > +# > +# Licensed under the Apache License 2.0 (the "License"). You may not use > +# this file except in compliance with the License. You can obtain a copy > +# in the file LICENSE in the source distribution or at > +# https://www.openssl.org/source/license.html > + > +# This file is dual-licensed and is also available under the following > +# terms: > +# > +# Copyright (c) 2023, Christoph Müllner <christoph.muellner@xxxxxxxx> > +# All rights reserved. > +# > +# Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without > +# modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions > +# are met: > +# 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright > +# notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. > +# 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright > +# notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the > +# documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. Is this worded properly for a dual license? The paragraph about the Apache License makes it sound like the Apache License must always be complied with: "You may not use this file except in compliance with the License." So I worry that this could be interpreted as: Apache-2.0 AND BSD-2-Clause instead of Apache-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause It needs to be the latter. So I think the file header needs to be clarified w.r.t. the dual license. Side note: can you please also include a SPDX-License-Identifier? - Eric
