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]

Message-ID: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKKEONKKAC.davids@webmaster.com>
Date:	Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:19:42 -0800
From:	"David Schwartz" <davids@...master.com>
To:	<khc@...waw.pl>
Cc:	<Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>,
	"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.

> "David Schwartz" <davids@...master.com> writes:

> > I don't know who told you that or why, but it's obvious nonsense,

> Correct.

> > 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 isn't very obvious to me.

It may not be obvious, but it is the design and purpose of marking exports
GPL.

> The licence doesn't talk about GPL or non-GPL exports. It doesn't
> restrict the use, only distribution of the software. One is free to
> remove _GPL from the code and distribute it anyway (except perhaps for
> some DMCA nonsense).

That's true. The DMCA doesn't prevent it, since marking symbols is *not* a
license enforcement mechanism.

> If a code is a derivative work it has to be distributed (use is not
> restricted) under GPL, EXPORT _GPL or not _GPL.

Of course.

> One may say _GPL is a strong indication that all users are
> automatically a derivative works, but it's only that - indication. It
> doesn't mean they are really derivative works and it doesn't mean a
> module not using any _GPL exports isn't a derivative.

Of course. (The only people who argue otherwise are the 'linking makes a
derivative work' idiots.)

> I think introducing these _GPL symbols was a mistake in the first place.

Perhaps, since people seem to be trying to refight the same battles again.

The agreement made when the feature was added was that EXPORT_GPL was not a
license enforcement mechanism but was an indication that someone believed
that any use of the symbol was possible only a derivative work that would
need to be distributed under the GPL.

> Actually I think the _GPL exports are really harmful - somebody
> distributing a binary module may claim he/she doesn't violate the GPL
> because the module uses only non-GPL exports.

Anyone can argue anything. That would be an obviously stupid argument.
Perhaps clearer documentation might be helpful, but the GPL speaks for
itself.

> OTOH GPL symbols give
> _us_ exactly nothing.

They serve as a warning and, as a practical matter, may make it a bit more
difficult to violate the license.

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/