linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] module: Block some modules by TUXEDO from accessing

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: <4356a7f8-2c37-4d34-9e77-8af83d251cee@tuxedocomputers.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 18:27:20 +0100
From: Werner Sembach <wse@...edocomputers.com>
To: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...libre.com>
Cc: mcgrof@...nel.org, petr.pavlu@...e.com, samitolvanen@...gle.com,
 da.gomez@...sung.com, linux-modules@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux@...mhuis.info, vv@...edocomputers.com,
 cs@...edo.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] module: Block some modules by TUXEDO from
 accessing

Hello,

Am 15.11.24 um 17:40 schrieb Uwe Kleine-König:
> Hello Werner,
>
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 02:03:27PM +0100, Werner Sembach wrote:
>> Am 15.11.24 um 13:58 schrieb Werner Sembach:
>>> Following the meeting I wrote about yesterday, I now changed the license
>>> of what we could change spontaniously to prove good faith.
>>>
>>> I still hope that the rest can be sorted out before anything gets merged.
>>> We are working on it. A clear time window would still be helpfull.
>>>
>>> At Uwe. I don't know how it works if you modifiy someone elses code. I
>>> removed the Signed-off-by: line and I guess you have to add it again?
> The more usual thing would have been to reply to my mail saying
> something like:
>
> 	All the code in tuxedo-drivers.git that Tuxedo owns the complete
> 	copyright for was relicensed to GPLv2+ now. (See $link)
> 	For the remaining code I'm working in the background towards
> 	relicensing.
>
> 	So please drop
>
> 		$modulelist
>
> 	from your patch of modules to block.
>
> I'm sure with that feedback you don't risk that the original patch is
> applied.
After the prevailing discussion, I'm not so sure about this. I went with the 
safe option of sending code, because code usually gets more attention on the 
LKML in my experience.
>
> If you take someone else's patch and rework it (which IMHO should only
> be done when the original submitter dropped following up to prevent
> duplication of work), it's good style to explicitly mention the changes
> you implemented since the patch was initially posted. And then don't
> remove the S-o-b line. See 7602ffd1d5e8927fadd5187cb4aed2fdc9c47143 for
> an example. I think this is (at least partly) also described in
> Documentation/ somewhere.
Thanks for the reference, I will come back to it when I need it in the future.
>
> Looking at
> https://gitlab.com/tuxedocomputers/development/packages/tuxedo-drivers/-/commit/dd34594ab880ed477bb75725176c3fb9352a07eb
> (which would be $link mentioned above): If you switch to GPLv2, using
> the SPDX-License-Identifier should be good enough (but INAL). For sure
> don't put "51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA"
> in your files,
> https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/fsf-office-closing-party. Just keep
>
> 	You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> 	along with this program; if not, see <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
>
> which is also the current suggestion by the FSF,
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html.
>
> Thanks for working on this!
> Uwe

TBH I would be more happy with an apology for being called a liar, as I was 
already working on it starting Monday.

Best regards,

Werner Sembach