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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists