Re: [PATCH 02/14] soundwire: Add SoundWire bus type

[Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>]

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 08:33:18AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/soundwire/bus_type.c b/drivers/soundwire/bus_type.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..a14d1de80afa
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/drivers/soundwire/bus_type.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,229 @@
>> +/*
>> + *  This file is provided under a dual BSD/GPLv2 license.  When using or
>> + *  redistributing this file, you may do so under either license.
>> + *
>> + *  GPL LICENSE SUMMARY
>> + *
>> + *  Copyright(c) 2015-17 Intel Corporation.
>> + *
>> + *  This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>> + *  it under the terms of version 2 of the GNU General Public License as
>> + *  published by the Free Software Foundation.
>> + *
>> + *  This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
>> + *  WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>> + *  MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU
>> + *  General Public License for more details.
>> + *
>> + *  BSD LICENSE
>> + *
>> + *  Copyright(c) 2015-17 Intel Corporation.
>> + *
>> + *  Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
>> + *  modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
>> + *  are met:
>> + *
>> + *    * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>> + *      notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>> + *    * 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.
>> + *    * Neither the name of Intel Corporation nor the names of its
>> + *      contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived
>> + *      from this software without specific prior written permission.
>> + *
>> + *  THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
>> + *  "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
>> + *  LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
>> + *  A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
>> + *  OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS 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 ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
>
> Are you _sure_ that code that interacts with the driver core can have a
> dual-license here?  Have you explained to lawyers what you are doing
> here (wrapping gpl-only symbols with non-gpl-only exports)?
>
> And why dual license something that will only ever work on Linux?
>
> And finally, put a real SPDX header up there so that people don't have
> to parse that horrid amount of text to try to determine exactly what
> that license is.

Vinod:

It is hard to parse for people ... but it is quite hard for tools to catch
this too. This license notice is so peculiar and special that I had to
make a special detection rule just for it [1] in my tool :|
Please have mercy: could you not pick something simpler?

[1]  https://github.com/nexB/scancode-toolkit/blob/develop/src/licensedcode/data/rules/gpl-2.0_or_bsd-new33.RULE
-- 
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne