linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dma-buf: Use EXPORT

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: <4F200847.3040806@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:48:55 -0200
From:	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC:	"Semwal, Sumit" <sumit.semwal@...com>,
	Robert Morell <rmorell@...dia.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
	"sumit.semwal@...aro.org" <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma-buf: Use EXPORT_SYMBOL

Em 25-01-2012 11:46, Mauro Carvalho Chehab escreveu:
> Em 25-01-2012 10:30, Alan Cox escreveu:
>>> Technically speaking, is there no way that the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPLed
>>> symbols can be used by the binary blobs, possibly with an open-sourced
>>> shim which provides the buffer-sharing interface to the binary blobs?
>>> Are there any reasons to not consider this approach?
>>
>> The GPL requires all the code of a work is source. All of it, no shims no
>> magic glue. EXPORT_SYMBOL isn't an indication you can use it for binary
>> modules. The GPL licence is quite clear on what is covered.
> 
> Agreed. Such patch won't change anything. The discussions, patch reviews,
> etc were under the assumption that the code will be GPL'd, plus the
> subsystems that are exposed by this interface also assumes that.

>  Any trials to circumvent it seem to violate Kernel owner's rights.

In time, let me rephrase it:

Any trial to circumvent it seems to be an attempt to violate Kernel owner's rights.

> 
>> Since you've asked this I'm advised by my lawyer to respond to all such
>> assumptions of legality of binary modules...
>>
>> For a Linux kernel containing any code I own the code is under the GNU
>> public license v2 (in some cases or later), I have never given permission
>> for that code to be used as part of a combined or derivative work which
>> contains binary chunks. I have never said that modules are somehow
>> magically outside the GPL and I am doubtful that in most cases a work
>> containing binary modules for a Linux kernel is compatible with the
>> licensing, although I accept there may be some cases that it is.
>>
>> Alan
> 
> I second Alan:
> 	For a Linux kernel containing any code I own the code is under the GNU
> 	public license v2 (in a few cases, where explicitly said GPLv2 or later 
> 	or dual GNU/BSD), I have never given permission for that code to be
> 	used as part of a combined or derivative work which contains binary chunks.
> 
> Regards,
> Mauro.

--
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/