Re: Binary only module overview

From: Crispin Cowan (crispinat_private)
Date: Wed Sep 26 2001 - 15:50:11 PDT

  • Next message: richard offer: "Re: Determing the difference between path_walk and chdir ?"

    Greg KH wrote:
    
    >On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 12:17:37PM -0700, Crispin Cowan wrote:
    >
    >>Greg KH wrote:
    >>
    >>>If you were to include a GPL licensed user space header file in a closed
    >>>source program, of course you would be violating that license.
    >>>
    >>That is not clear to me. [... #include glibc -> #include kernel]
    >>
    >That is an issue to take up with the glibc authors, not me.
    >
    Fair enough. I pointed it out to make clear that there are licensing 
    problems and ambiguities if one strictly insists that #include 
    some_gpl.h implies that the code is GPL'd. If that is the case, then 
    there are MUCH bigger licensing problems than LSM, so don't take it up 
    with me, either :-)
    
    >>If you (Greg, Alan) are confident that your interpretation of the GPL is 
    >>correct, then just marking the files as GPL should be sufficient. What 
    >>purpose is served by saying anything else?
    >>
    >As Alan stated, to reduce confusion as to the wishes of the copyright
    >holders of the file.
    >
    However, it is an outright contradiction to some wishes of some other 
    copyright holders of the kernel (Linus' binary kernel opinion). Since 
    revisions to the kernel's GPL are explicitly prohibited, it seems to me 
    that this statement of one side of the controversy as if it were a fact 
    increases confusion rather than decreases it.
    
    >a small note in it detailing this disagreement might be a nice thing to do.
    >
    Fair enough.  How about this:
    
        "This file is GPL. See the Linux Kernel's COPYING file for details.
        There is controversy over whether this permits you to write a module
        that #includes this file without placing your module under the GPL.
        Consult your lawyer for advice."
    
    I'm really trying to be constructive here.  There is a real licensing 
    problem over whether binary modules are legitimate at all, and the issue 
    is not special to LSM. I'm trying to get LSM out of the way so that the 
    advocates of either side can fight it out without smushing LSM in the 
    middle :-)
    
    Crispin
    
    -- 
    Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
    Chief Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc. http://wirex.com
    Security Hardened Linux Distribution:       http://immunix.org
    Available for purchase: http://wirex.com/Products/Immunix/purchase.html
    
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    linux-security-module mailing list
    linux-security-moduleat_private
    http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Sep 26 2001 - 15:51:42 PDT