Re: [PATCH 3/8] crypto: drbg: Convert dual BSD 3-Clause/GPL-1.0 license boilerplate to SPDX identifier

Bagas Sanjaya
2023-06-08T05:45:38Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3869 bytes --]

On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 09:56:03AM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 1:41 AM Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Replace the boilerplate with corresponding SPDX tag. Since there is no
> > explicit GPL version, assume GPL 1.0+.
> >
> > Cc: Stephan Mueller <smueller@chronox.de>
> > Signed-off-by: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > crypto/drbg.c | 33 +--------------------------------
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 32 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/crypto/drbg.c b/crypto/drbg.c
> > index ff4ebbc68efab1..f797deaf3952ef 100644
> > --- a/crypto/drbg.c
> > +++ b/crypto/drbg.c
> > @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause OR GPL-1.0+
> > /*
> > * DRBG: Deterministic Random Bits Generator
> > * Based on NIST Recommended DRBG from NIST SP800-90A with the following
> > @@ -9,38 +10,6 @@
> > *
> > * Copyright Stephan Mueller <smueller@chronox.de>, 2014
> > *
> > - * 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, and the entire permission notice in its entirety,
> > - * including the disclaimer of warranties.
> > - * 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.
> > - * 3. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or promote
> > - * products derived from this software without specific prior
> > - * written permission.
> > - *
> > - * ALTERNATIVELY, this product may be distributed under the terms of
> > - * the GNU General Public License, in which case the provisions of the GPL are
> > - * required INSTEAD OF the above restrictions. (This clause is
> > - * necessary due to a potential bad interaction between the GPL and
> > - * the restrictions contained in a BSD-style copyright.)
> > - *
> > - * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
> > - * WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES
> > - * OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, ALL OF
> > - * WHICH ARE HEREBY DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE
> > - * LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
> > - * CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT
> > - * OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR
> > - * BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF
> > - * LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
> > - * (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE
> > - * USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF NOT ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
> > - * DAMAGE.
>
> The non-GPL portion of this notice does not match BSD-3-Clause as
> currently defined by SPDX (see:
> https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/main/src/BSD-3-Clause.xml).
> This is at least the third time in your recent patches that you have
> assumed that a non-GPL license matches a particular SPDX identifier
> without (apparently) checking.

I missed the point of first clause of this BSD boilerplate, for which
I had to not delete the boilerplate. I can keep the SPDX tag if Stephan
(original author) or at least Greg agree with this BSD wording variant.

>
> That's assuming it's appropriate to represent this as a dual license
> and omit the 'ALTERNATIVELY' parenthetical. I'm not sure how I feel
> about that.

Do you mean the SPDX tag should have been with AND instead?

Thanks for reviewing.

--
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]