[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2a82f2e1-070a-4269-8b8e-26c5f188c85f@tuxedocomputers.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2024 19:41:22 +0100
From: Werner Sembach <wse@...edocomputers.com>
To: Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@...nel.org>
Cc: 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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] module: Block modules by Tuxedo from accessing GPL
symbols
Hello Uwe,
Am 16.11.24 um 18:49 schrieb Uwe Kleine-König:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 12:14:16PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>> On 11/14/24 11:49, Werner Sembach wrote:
>>> Am 14.11.24 um 11:31 schrieb Uwe Kleine-König:
>>>> the kernel modules provided by Tuxedo on
>>>> https://gitlab.com/tuxedocomputers/development/packages/tuxedo-drivers
>>>> are licensed under GPLv3 or later. This is incompatible with the
>>>> kernel's license and so makes it impossible for distributions and other
>>>> third parties to support these at least in pre-compiled form and so
>>>> limits user experience and the possibilities to work on mainlining these
>>>> drivers.
>>>>
>>>> This incompatibility is created on purpose to control the upstream
>>>> process. See https://fosstodon.org/@kernellogger/113423314337991594 for
>>>> a nice summary of the situation and some further links about the issue.
>>>>
>>>> Note that the pull request that fixed the MODULE_LICENSE invocations to
>>>> stop claiming GPL(v2) compatibility was accepted and then immediately
>>>> reverted "for the time being until the legal stuff is sorted out"
>>>> (https://gitlab.com/tuxedocomputers/development/packages/tuxedo-
>>>> drivers/-/commit/a8c09b6c2ce6393fe39d8652d133af9f06cfb427).
>>> As already being implied by that commit message, this is sadly not an
>>> issue that can be sorted out over night.
>>>
>>> We ended up in this situation as MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") on its own does
>>> not hint at GPL v2, if one is not aware of the license definition table
>>> in the documentation.
>> That statement isn't consistent with you saying to pick GPLv3 as an
>> explicitly incompatible license to control the mainlining process. So you
>> knew that it's legally at least questionable to combine these licenses.
> When I wrote this mail I missed the possibility that while Werner knew
> GPLv3 isn't ok for in-kernel code might still have considered GPLv3 ok
> for external modules anyhow.
>
> So I take back what I said and excuse me for my words. They were not
> intended as harsh as Werner obviously took them, but still I regret
> having written my reply with this suggestion.
>
> I'm sorry,
> Uwe
Thank you very much for these words.
I hope that in my replies I wasn't too harsh from my side and if so, I
too want to apologize for it.
No more bad feelings going forward.
Best regards,
Werner Sembach
Powered by blists - more mailing lists