linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19

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

Message-Id: <ECF27505-1BA5-41F6-A0EB-BB98C5050643@mac.com>
Date:	Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:59:14 -0500
From:	Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>
To:	"Michael K. Edwards" <medwards.linux@...il.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Martin Bligh <mbligh@...igh.org>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19

On Dec 13, 2006, at 17:20:35, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 12/13/06, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:32:50 -0800 Martin Bligh  
>> <mbligh@...igh.org> wrote:
>>> So let's come out and ban binary modules, rather than  
>>> pussyfooting around, if that's what we actually want to do.
>>
>> Give people 12 months warning (time to work out what they're going  
>> to do, talk with the legal dept, etc) then make the kernel load  
>> only GPL-tagged modules.
>
> IIRC, Linus has deliberately and explicitly estopped himself from  
> claiming that loading a binary-only driver is a GPL violation.  Do  
> you really want to create an arbitrage opportunity for  
> intermediaries who undo technical measures that don't match Linus's  
> declared policy or, in many people's opinion, the law in at least  
> some jurisdictions? (I'm not going to go all amateur-lawyer on you,  
> but the transcript of oral argument at the Supreme Court level in  
> Lotus v. Borland makes really interesting reading no matter where  
> you live or what your stance is on GPL-and-linking.)

Ok, so what Linus said is true for any code that _Linus_ wrote up  
until this point.  It is perfectly fine for the iptables developers  
to say "I think linking with my GPL IPTables code for makes your code  
a derivative work of mine", although I don't really have the legal  
knowledge to argue technical points either way.

Corporations change their mind on licensing all the time; though you  
can never revoke privileges you already granted on existing  
materials. As soon as you start creating new material (in the Linux  
case at a rate of multiple megs per month) you can set new licensing  
requirements on that new code as long as it's compatible with the  
requirements on the old code which it's linked against.

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

-
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/