On Fri 2020-10-09 09:21:41, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 09:10:45AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > index 000000000000..f54da5f19c2b > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/driver.c > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,173 @@ > > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-3-Clause) > > > > > > You use gpl-only header files in this file, so how in the world can it > > > be bsd-3 licensed? > > > > > > Please get your legal department to agree with this, after you explain > > > to them how you are mixing gpl2-only code in with this file. > > > > This specifies license of driver.c, not of the headers included. Are > > you saying that it is impossible to have a kernel driver with anything > > else than GPL-2? That would be news to many, and that's not what > > current consensus is. > > If you want to write any non-GPL-2-only kernel code, you had better be > consulting your lawyers and get very explicit instructions on how to do > this in a way that does not violate any licenses. > > I am not a lawyer, and will not be giving you any such advice, as I > think it's not something that people should be doing. You are pushing view that is well outside accepted community consensus, then try to hide it by claiming that you are not a lawyer. Stop it. Dual licensed drivers are common in the kernel, and are considered okay by everyone but you. Author is free to select license for his work. Pavel -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
