linux-kernel - RE: how to include already compiled object files to kernel

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <D854C92F57B1B347B57E531E78D05EAD574C672C@BGSMSX104.gar.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 28 Apr 2014 06:35:51 +0000
From:	"Pallala, Ramakrishna" <ramakrishna.pallala@...el.com>
To:	"Hohndel, Dirk" <dirk.hohndel@...el.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: how to include already compiled object files to kernel

Hi Dirk/Everyone,

First of all I would like to apologize for sending this e-mail out on LKML. It was not intended to come here but was for an internal group. My mail client seems to have auto predicted the wrong group and I was stupid enough not to verify this before hitting the send button (I guess the late Friday push was too hard). 

I promise to be more careful next time.

Thanks & Regards,
Ram

-----Original Message-----
From: Hohndel, Dirk 
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 3:31 AM
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Pallala, Ramakrishna
Subject: Re: how to include already compiled object files to kernel

On Fri, 2014-04-25 at 16:24 +0000, Pallala, Ramakrishna wrote:
> HI All,
> 
> I have received few kernel library .o (object files) from third party and I am planning to include in our kernel tree. As the library contains some proprietary algorithms  the sources are not shared.
> 
> How can I include this library .o files to my kernel and if this kernel is release to customers will there be any license issues? Third party says the sources are under GPL.
> 

Oh joy. Just what I wanted to read today...

Our apologies; this is not a question or issue that should have been posted to LKML.  Legal questions (such as what is permitted by any particular license) by Intel employees are supposed to be directed to Intel's legal department and not to public mailing lists.  Intel also has a technical and business review process for reviewing *all* Open Source software activities, including all Linux kernel contributions, and the very first response from that review process would have been to direct questions about license interpretation and permissible licensing models to Intel's Legal Department.

We'll be following up with the development of this not-yet-released product to ensure that it is fully compliant with the GPL and other open source licenses as well as community-accepted practices, that it follows Intel's normal review processes, and that all the developers involved are familiar with Intel's policies for working with open source.

For those who have responded to the original mail, both privately and
publicly: thank you for your diligence and suggestions; we have been working internally for the last few hours (literally since WE saw it on the mailing list). But it's good to see that the community is as responsive to these issues as we are.

And now back to our regularly scheduled emergencies.

/D

--
Dirk Hohndel
Chief Linux and Open Source Technologist Intel Open Source Technology Center