> It seems you still don't explicitly clarify anywhere in the source itself that
> the copyright holders of the code from OpenSSL have relicensed it under GPLv2.
> I only see a GPLv2 license slapped on the files, yet no such license is
> presence
> in the OpenSSL originals, at least in the one I checked. If you did receive
> explicit permission, then you should include an explicit clarification in each
> file like the one in arch/arm/crypto/sha1-armv4-large.S.
Better yet, get the copyright holders to publicly send a
signed-off-by: or acked-by: so it is clear they agree to this.
Andrew
