linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.24-rc7-rt2

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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0801272230270.8920@frodo.shire>
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/