linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] 2.6.25-rc2-mm1

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]

Date:	Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:30:40 -0800
From:	"David Schwartz" <davids@...master.com>
To:	<Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>
Cc:	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo" <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Alan Cox" <alan@...hat.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] 2.6.25-rc2-mm1 - fix mcount GPL bogosity.


> The reason I added GPL is not because of some idea that this is all
> "chummy" with the kernel. But because I derived the mcount code from
> glibc's version of mcount. Now you may argue that glibc is under LGPL
> and a non-GPL export is fine. But I've been advised that if I ever take
> code from someone else, to always export it with GPL.
>
> -- Steve

I don't know who told you that or why, but it's obvious nonsense, as this
issue shows. Exports should be marked GPL if and only if they cannot be used
except in a derivative work. If it is possible to use them without taking
sufficient protectable expression, they should not be marked GPL.

This was what everyone agreed to when GPL exports were created.

DS


--
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/