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  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:	Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:28:43 -0800
From:	"David Schwartz" <>
To:	<>
Cc:	<>,
	"Andrew Morton" <>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <>,
	"Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo" <>,
	<>, "Alan Cox" <>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] 2.6.25-rc2-mm1 - fix mcount GPL bogosity.

> "David Schwartz" <> writes:

> > This is an obviously-wrong argument,

> Even if it's proven wrong in the end, the defendant may at least be
> found acting in a good faith.

If they were in fact acting in good faith, they should be found to have been
acting in good faith. If you think this reasonably might result in
confusion, the solution is better documentation.

> > All you can do in code is implement technical things.

> The GPL itself is the weapon, not the technical measures which can be
> legally trivially disabled (even if the modules are illegal).


> > You cannot enforce or
> > implement the license because the GPL prohibits that.

> Not sure what do you mean. I was under impression that a copyright
> holder can enforce GPL :-)

I mean you can't enforce or implement the license in code because the GPL
specifically permits modification without exclusion. Someone cannot use the
GPL to force you to use code you do not wish to use. The GPL does not
contain any technical enforcement mechanism and would not permit one because
it would be a "further restriction" (it's a restriction, it's not in the
GPL, so it's further).

Perhaps some kind of technical rule that didn't prohibit anything the GPL
allowed might be a legitimate license enforcement scheme, not restricting
anything "further". That's a stretch, but the GPL symbol tagging doesn't
apply since it prohibits non-GPL modules from using those symbols even if
they are not distibuted. This is not a restriction found in the GPL, so it's
a "further restriction". (Which is fine. Not being able to remove any file
as 'root' is a restriction not found in the GPL too. The point is, these are
technical restrictions, not license enforcement mechanisms.)


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists