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: <459e15ff-4f1f-4d7c-b49d-ccae540eaa4f@tuxedocomputers.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:59:47 +0100
From: Werner Sembach <wse@...edocomputers.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
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


Am 15.11.24 um 11:22 schrieb Greg KH:
> 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."
But you see where there is complexity, and where my misconception stems from?
>
> 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