linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] module: Block modules by Tuxedo from accessing GPL symbols

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: <2024111558-albatross-vice-2a73@gregkh>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:22:12 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Werner Sembach <wse@...edocomputers.com>
Cc: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...libre.com>,
	Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, tux@...edocomputers.com,
	Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@...e.com>,
	Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
	Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@...sung.com>, linux-modules@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>,
	Vinzenz Vietzke <vv@...edocomputers.com>,
	Christoffer Sandberg <cs@...edo.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] module: Block modules by Tuxedo from accessing GPL
 symbols

On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 10:40:56AM +0100, Werner Sembach wrote:
> 
> Am 15.11.24 um 10:18 schrieb Greg KH:
> > On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 10:00:23AM +0100, Werner Sembach wrote:
> > > I guess what I try to convince you and others is that we _are_ taking Open
> > > Source licenses seriously, but still there are mistakes to be made,
> > > especially with complex projects like the Linux kernel, e.g. I'm not aware
> > > of any other project that uses a similar construct to
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()/MODULE_LICENSE().
> > The Linux kernel is very simple from a license point of view, your code
> > has to be GPLv2 compatible.  That's it, nothing complex or odd about
> > that at all.
> Then why does the proprietary NVIDIA driver exist?

You will have to discuss that with that company's lawyers.  That was
their business decision to make, and in my opinion, the contracts they
wrote around that thing were a mastery of license law in "how to pass
the liability onto someone else."

Luckily we now have open drivers for almost all of that hardware, so
it's not so much of an issue anymore.

Again, talk about this with your company lawyers, they can explain it
all much better than I can.

thanks,

greg k-h