From: Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 04/20] zinc: ChaCha20 x86_64 implementation Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 08:13:40 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: References: <20180918161646.19105-1-Jason@zx2c4.com> <20180918161646.19105-5-Jason@zx2c4.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: LKML , Netdev , Linux Crypto Mailing List , David Miller , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Samuel Neves , Andrew Lutomirski , Jean-Philippe Aumasson , Andy Polyakov , mingo@redhat.com, X86 ML , Kate Stewart To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org Jason, On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 12:30 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > +++ b/lib/zinc/chacha20/chacha20-x86_64-glue.h > > > @@ -0,0 +1,100 @@ > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT > > > > Please put that into a separate one liner comment. Also this should be > > 'GPL-2.0[+] or MIT' I think. > > I had that originally, but changed it to just MIT, since MIT is a > subset of GPL-2.0. And looking at tree repo, it appears this is what > others do too. Subset? Not really. Both MIT and BSD3-Clause are GPL2.0 compatible licenses. And if your intention is to have those files MIT/BSD only, yes then the single license identifier is the right thing. If you want it dual licensed then it should be expressed there clearly. Thanks, tglx