Re: [PATCH 1/2] crypto: vmx - Adding asm subroutines for XTS

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Paulo,

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 10:34:27 -0300 Paulo Flabiano Smorigo <pfsmorigo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 01:05:03PM +1000, Stewart Smith wrote:
> > Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:  
> > > On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 16:07:39 -0300 Paulo Flabiano Smorigo <pfsmorigo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:  
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/drivers/crypto/vmx/aesp8-ppc.pl b/drivers/crypto/vmx/aesp8-ppc.pl
> > >> index 2280539..813ffcc 100644
> > >> --- a/drivers/crypto/vmx/aesp8-ppc.pl
> > >> +++ b/drivers/crypto/vmx/aesp8-ppc.pl
> > >> @@ -1,4 +1,11 @@
> > >> -#!/usr/bin/env perl
> > >> +#! /usr/bin/env perl
> > >> +# Copyright 2014-2016 The OpenSSL Project Authors. All Rights Reserved.
> > >> +#
> > >> +# Licensed under the OpenSSL license (the "License").  You may not use
> > >> +# this file except in compliance with the License.  You can obtain a copy
> > >> +# in the file LICENSE in the source distribution or at
> > >> +# https://www.openssl.org/source/license.html  
> > >
> > > So, I assume that this license is compatible with the GPLv2?  
> 
> Andy released this code under the cryptogams license:
> 
> # ====================================================================
> # Written by Andy Polyakov <appro@xxxxxxxxxxx> for the OpenSSL
> # project. The module is, however, dual licensed under OpenSSL and
> # CRYPTOGAMS licenses depending on where you obtain it. For further
> # details see http://www.openssl.org/~appro/cryptogams/.
> # ====================================================================

Yeah, this license statement is already in the file being patched, so
why is the above license (and Copyright notice) being added above the
existing one?

> The license is GPL compatible:

Good, thanks.

> ALTERNATIVELY, provided that this notice is retained in full, this
> product may be distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public
> License (GPL), in which case the provisions of the GPL apply INSTEAD OF
> those given above.

Which is not in this file or the patch, but presumably in the referred
to web page.

Of course, I am not a lawyer :-)
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell