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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:51:55 +0100 (CET) From: Esben Nielsen <nielsen.esben@...glemail.com> To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, caglar@...dus.org.tr, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, RT <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> Subject: Re: 2.6.24-rc7-rt2 On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Esben Nielsen wrote: >> >> Please, tell what in the license forbids me to make a global replacement >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL -> EXPORT_SYMBOL and distribute the result? > > If you want to distribute that code, the authors of that said code > may be able to challenge you in saying that you are enabling a means to > circumvent a way around the license, and hold you liable. Remember, all it > takes is one country with the laws that will grant this complaint. > >> >> For me, on the other hand, it is against the spirit of free software to >> actively make a block for people to do what ever they want with the code >> when they are only doing it to themselves. That includes loading non-GPL >> software into the kernel. The only thing they are not allowed to do is to >> distribute it and in that way "hurt" other people. > > Honestly, I don't care which export it is. The thing is that I derived > that code from someone else. I did not look up the original author of the > code to find out which export they would like it to be. I may be able to > argue that since it was under a LGPL and not a GPL license, I may very > well be able to export it that way. > > I'm taking the safe way out. By exporting it as EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, I am > safe either way. By exporting it as EXPORT_SYMBOL without first hearing > from the original author (and getting that in writing), or hearing it from > a lawyer, I may be putting myself at risk. > > Feel free to creating a version of this code and > s/EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL/EXPORT_SYMBOL/ and distribute it. I wont come after > you for that, but at least I know those that would, will go after you and > not me. > > Call me a chicken, I don't care, but I'm just not going to put myself nor > my company I work for, at risk over this issue. > First off, sorry for sounding so harsh and sorry for taking this discussion onto you. It is quite off-topic in this context. It was just a rant about the misconception that adding/removing _GPL to EXPORT_SYMBOL can make non-GPL modules more or less legal. Is is a _political_ issue, not a legal one. Esben > -- Steve > -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists