Hi Heiko,
On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 04:06:42PM +0200, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/crypto/ghash-riscv64-zbc.pl b/arch/riscv/crypto/ghash-riscv64-zbc.pl
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..691231ffa11c
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/riscv/crypto/ghash-riscv64-zbc.pl
> @@ -0,0 +1,400 @@
> +#! /usr/bin/env perl
> +# Copyright 2022 The OpenSSL Project Authors. All Rights Reserved.
> +#
> +# Licensed under the Apache License 2.0 (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
My understanding is that code that is licensed under (only) the Apache License
2.0 cannot be included in GPLv2 programs such as the Linux kernel.
Is this code written by Andy Polyakov? What's been done in the past for his
code is that he re-releases it in CRYPTOGAMS at
https://github.com/dot-asm/cryptogams with a Linux kernel compatible license.
The Linux kernel then takes the code from there instead of from OpenSSL.
- Eric
Hi Eric,
Am Mittwoch, 29. M?rz 2023, 20:37:16 CEST schrieb Eric Biggers:
> Hi Heiko,
>
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 04:06:42PM +0200, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/crypto/ghash-riscv64-zbc.pl b/arch/riscv/crypto/ghash-riscv64-zbc.pl
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..691231ffa11c
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/crypto/ghash-riscv64-zbc.pl
> > @@ -0,0 +1,400 @@
> > +#! /usr/bin/env perl
> > +# Copyright 2022 The OpenSSL Project Authors. All Rights Reserved.
> > +#
> > +# Licensed under the Apache License 2.0 (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
>
> My understanding is that code that is licensed under (only) the Apache License
> 2.0 cannot be included in GPLv2 programs such as the Linux kernel.
Thanks a lot for pointing out that possible licensing issue.
It seems I'm not touching enough non-GPL code most days to keep that
in the front of my mind :-) .
> Is this code written by Andy Polyakov? What's been done in the past for his
> code is that he re-releases it in CRYPTOGAMS at
> https://github.com/dot-asm/cryptogams with a Linux kernel compatible license.
> The Linux kernel then takes the code from there instead of from OpenSSL.
The git log for the original openssl ".pl" thankfully only contains
@vrull.eu addresses, so getting this in a compatible license shouldn't be
overly hard - I hope.
Heiko
Hi again,
Am Mittwoch, 29. M?rz 2023, 21:20:21 CEST schrieb Heiko St?bner:
> Am Mittwoch, 29. M?rz 2023, 20:37:16 CEST schrieb Eric Biggers:
> > On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 04:06:42PM +0200, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/crypto/ghash-riscv64-zbc.pl b/arch/riscv/crypto/ghash-riscv64-zbc.pl
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000000..691231ffa11c
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/arch/riscv/crypto/ghash-riscv64-zbc.pl
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,400 @@
> > > +#! /usr/bin/env perl
> > > +# Copyright 2022 The OpenSSL Project Authors. All Rights Reserved.
> > > +#
> > > +# Licensed under the Apache License 2.0 (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
> >
> > My understanding is that code that is licensed under (only) the Apache License
> > 2.0 cannot be included in GPLv2 programs such as the Linux kernel.
>
> Thanks a lot for pointing out that possible licensing issue.
> It seems I'm not touching enough non-GPL code most days to keep that
> in the front of my mind :-) .
>
>
> > Is this code written by Andy Polyakov? What's been done in the past for his
> > code is that he re-releases it in CRYPTOGAMS at
> > https://github.com/dot-asm/cryptogams with a Linux kernel compatible license.
> > The Linux kernel then takes the code from there instead of from OpenSSL.
>
> The git log for the original openssl ".pl" thankfully only contains
> @vrull.eu addresses, so getting this in a compatible license shouldn't be
> overly hard - I hope.
just to follow up with the current state.
We're currently trying to see if openSSL allows us to dual-license the
files inside openssl itself [0]. It looks a bit like we're the first to
try something like this, so the decision gets to be made by the OMC.
If that fails, we'll provide our own files dual-licensed in a separate
repository, similar to Andy's way of doing things.
Heiko
[0] https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/20649