linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] USB: mark USB drivers as being GPL only

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: <47AB163C.5070107@davidnewall.com>
Date:	Fri, 08 Feb 2008 01:01:24 +1030
From:	David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com>
To:	Hans-Jürgen Koch <hjk@...utronix.de>
CC:	Christer Weinigel <christer@...nigel.se>,
	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
	Diego Zuccato <diego@...llo.alma.unibo.it>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: mark USB drivers as being GPL only

Hans-Jürgen Koch wrote:
> Am Thu, 07 Feb 2008 23:49:42 +1030
> schrieb David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com>:
>   
>> Nobody is saying "I don't like your licence."  The issue is a
>> technical restriction in Linux that attempts to restrict non-GPL
>> software from running under it.  
>>     
>
> What are you trying to say? You like the license but you're against
> enforcing it? 
>   

I told you: the GPL does not preclude inter-operation with non-GPL software.

>> It's a bullish approach, technically incompetent,
>>     
>
> What's incompetent?
>   
It's easily defeated.

>> legally meaningless
>>     
>
> It is not legally meaningless if copyright holders publicly state how
> they interpret the license and what they consider a license violation.
>   

Copyright-holders' opinions mean nothing.  In the particular case of
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, copyright-holders' opinions are clearly flawed
because they make a statement about code that they do not even know of. 
It's equivalent to someone saying, "you are wrong," before you've even
thought about saying something.

> In the end, a court must decide, but lots of courts will at least look
> at the statements the copyright holders made over the years.
>
>   
>> and politically damaging.
>>     
>
> That's your opinion because it's damaging _your_ political goals.
>   

How ludicrous.  That's as much a nonsense as EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.  You
have no idea what my political goals are.

Less there be further confusion: I am not an advocate for binary
drivers.  That role is reserved for others.  However that does not stop
me from criticising something that is obviously wrong.  Stating that
only a GPL code is permitted to use a symbol contravenes the GPL,
because the GPL states no such requirement.  Saying that it's impossible
for code that uses the symbol to be non-GPL (as has been claimed) is a
lie at worst, and a hope at best.  Nobody claiming such a thing could
know it to be true.  (It is not true.)
--
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/