linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] [SCSI] scsi_dh: change scsi_dh_detach export to EXPORT

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:13:06 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
Cc:	James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
	Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@...ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] [SCSI] scsi_dh: change scsi_dh_detach export to
 EXPORT_SYMBOL

> Anyway, your no compromises approach is admirable but it doesn't erase
> the fact that all proprietary Linux drivers use EXPORT_SYMBOL code.

People still steal from shops. It doesn't mean we should abolish the idea
of theft.

> So what you're really saying is no proprietary drivers are allowed to be
> loaded into a Linux kernel.

The GPL defines the boundary. Whether it is possible for a work to be
non-derivative and a kernel module is a matter for the lawyers to debate.
If it is derivative however I don't think there is quite so much doubt.

Linus wrote the following

|>"On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Kendall Bennett wrote:
|>
|> I have heard many people reference the fact that the although the Linux
|> Kernel is under the GNU GPL license, that the code is licensed with an
|> exception clause that says binary loadable modules do not have to be
|> under the GPL.
|
|Nope. No such exception exists.
|
|There's a clarification that user-space programs that use the standard
|system call interfaces aren't considered derived works, but even that
|isn't an "exception" - it's just a statement of a border of what is
|clearly considered a "derived work". User programs are _clearly_ not
|derived works of the kernel, and as such whatever the kernel license is
|just doesn't matter.
|
|And in fact, when it comes to modules, the GPL issue is exactly the same.
|The kernel _is_ GPL. No ifs, buts and maybe's about it. As a result,
|anything that is a derived work has to be GPL'd. It's that simple.

(and then goes on to discuss further his own personal opinion)

http://kerneltrap.org/node/1735

But you still misunderstand the fundamental problem, and this really
needs to be discussed with Red Hat legal.

Alan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/