On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 1:36 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 01:26:18PM +0200, Jens Wiklander wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 11:29 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman > > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 03:31:24PM +0200, Jens Wiklander wrote: > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > +++ b/drivers/misc/rpmb-core.c > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,233 @@ > > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > > > > > Fine, but: > > > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > +++ b/include/linux/rpmb.h > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,136 @@ > > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause OR GPL-2.0 */ > > > > > > Really? > > > > > > Why? I need lots of documentation and a lawyer sign off for why this is > > > a dual license for a file that is obviously only for internal Linux > > > kernel stuff. > > > > I'm sorry that was added via one of the patch sets before mine. I'll > > revert to GPL-2.0 only. > > Please be sure to get proper legal approval to change the license of > code not written by you :) The dual license was introduced in https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220405093759.1126835-2-alex.bennee@xxxxxxxxxx/, but https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mmc/1478548394-8184-2-git-send-email-tomas.winkler@xxxxxxxxx/ uses GPL-2.0 only. So reverting to GPL-2.0 only should be OK, don't you agree? Thanks, Jens
