linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] module: Clarify GPL-Compatible is OK

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: <20120407211512.GC11295@thunk.org>
Date:	Sat, 7 Apr 2012 17:15:12 -0400
From:	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...jolero.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	rusty@...tcorp.com.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Keith Packard <keithp@...thp.com>,
	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] module: Clarify GPL-Compatible is OK

On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 08:01:36PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > I also really don't see how this helps License compliance folks.  If
> > the BSD folks trying to figure out whether or not they can use some
> > piece of code, "GPL-Compatible" is no more useful than as "Dual
> > BSD/GPL".  In fact, Dual BSD/GPL might actually be more useful since
> > at least to me it says it can be used under the BSD or GPL license,
> > which is precisely what the BSD folks need.
> 
> If we are OK with this thread serving as documentation for this then
> so be it, but I still prefer for this to be clarified more. *I* am
> comfortable with this but I know other vendors who did try to achieve
> the same sharing had quite a bit of time trying to validate the
> approach.

I would rather think the obvious clarification would be reading the
d*mn copyright headers.  That's going to have much more weight in a
legal dispute in any case.  If the answer is that the Linux Foundation
needs to have a bit more basic training about what a Dual License
means in its license compliance services, maybe that's the right thing
--- although if a lawyer doesn't understand how dual licenses work,
I'd suggest that the company find a better lawyer....

> I rather speed help clarify this is a reasonable approach
> and also avoid flamewars like the ones we faced when developers eons
> ago though that we *had* to GPL the OpenBSD ar5k HAL when we ported it
> to Linux for use in ath5k.

So this is a different issue.  I assume you are referring to the fact
that include/linux/license.h's license_is_gpl_compatible() doesn't
have a pure BSD option?  If that's the issue, then lobby for adding
the line:

+	|| strcmp(license, "BSD") == 0

If you are really worried about people being upset that currently, you
have to explicitly add a GPL license to BSD-licensed driver code
before it gets imported into the kernel, and you are trying to
sidestep the issue by adding a "GPL-Compatible" license (on the
grounds that a BSD-only license qualifies as GPl-Compatible), let's
have that debate openly, instead of trying to side-step it by adding
"GPL-compatible" to include/linux/license.h and allowing BSD-only
modules to use GPL-only symbols via a back door.

Regards,

							- Ted
--
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/