riscv: Clarify dual-licensing wording for GCM and AES #21357
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The original text for the Apache + BSD dual licensing for riscv GCM and AES perlasm was taken from other openSSL users like crypto/crypto/LPdir_unix.c . Though Eric pointed out that the dual-licensing text could be read in a way negating the second license [0] and suggested to clarify the text even more. So do this here for all of the GCM, AES and shared riscv.pm . We already had the agreement of all involved developers for the actual dual licensing in [0] and [1], so this is only a better clarification for this. [0] #20649 (comment) [1] #21018 Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@vrull.eu>
|
Looks good to me. It is a little weird how each license has its own copyright statement, as the copyright statement really applies to the file, not the license. But this addresses the main issue. |
cmuellner
approved these changes
Jul 4, 2023
paulidale
approved these changes
Jul 4, 2023
paulidale
added
branch: master
t-j-h
approved these changes
Jul 5, 2023
t-j-h
added
approval: done
openssl-machine
added
approval: ready to merge
|
This pull request is ready to merge |
|
Merged! Thanks for you patience here. |
openssl-machine
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 6, 2023
The original text for the Apache + BSD dual licensing for riscv GCM and AES perlasm was taken from other openSSL users like crypto/crypto/LPdir_unix.c . Though Eric pointed out that the dual-licensing text could be read in a way negating the second license [0] and suggested to clarify the text even more. So do this here for all of the GCM, AES and shared riscv.pm . We already had the agreement of all involved developers for the actual dual licensing in [0] and [1], so this is only a better clarification for this. [0] #20649 (comment) [1] #21018 Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@vrull.eu> Reviewed-by: Tim Hudson <tjh@openssl.org> Reviewed-by: Paul Dale <pauli@openssl.org> (Merged from #21357)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The original text for the Apache + BSD dual licensing for riscv GCM and AES perlasm was taken from other openSSL users like crypto/crypto/LPdir_unix.c .
Though Eric pointed out that the dual-licensing text could be read in a way negating the second license [0] and suggested to clarify the text even more.
So do this here for all of the GCM, AES and shared riscv.pm .
We already had the agreement of all involved developers for the actual dual licensing in [0] and [1], so this is only a better clarification for this.
[0] #20649 (comment)
[1] #21018
@ebiggers : hopefully the wording is better now