On 11/16/22 22:10, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 02:57:22PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: >> On 11/14/22 22:54, Greg KH wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 10:15:03AM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: >>>> I came to the conclusion that this work is OK to submit with all of the >>>> steps I listed above (copyright notices, license terms and relicensing) >>>> by strictly following all of the processes required by my employer. >>>> >>>> This does not include a Signed-off-by from a corporate attorney. >>> Please get that, as that is what I asked for in order for us to be able >>> to accept this type of change. >> Hi Greg, >> >> Can you share any more of what triggered this new requirement? > You are taking source from a non-Intel developer under a different > license and adding copyright and different license information to it. > Because of all of that, I have the requirement that I want to know that > Intel legal has vetted all of this and agrees with the conclusions that > you all are stating. I rarely speak "for Intel". But, this is one case where I believe that I can. The Intel processes have been thoroughly and diligently followed here. Speaking for Intel: yes, this has been vetted and those statements are as official as a statement from Intel can be. Also, to reiterate my earlier offer: I believe Aaron can be flexible in both the license under which this is submitted and the presence of an explicit Intel copyright notice. If modifications there would help ease your concerns, we'd be happy to explore changes. I also recognize that there can be legitimate differences of opinion about what constitutes a 'valid' licensing decision. It's quite possible that the advice we're getting from folks at Intel differs the advise that others get. If that's happening, I'd love to find a way forward that allows that legitimate difference of opinion to persist while also getting a selftest in the kernel that I believe will find real bugs.
