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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hello,

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.

The only thing I could accept here is that you were surprised that the incompatibility has some technical enforcement resulting in your modules to become nonfunctional. But that's like a thieve in a supermarket who asks for forgiveness because while he was aware that steeling is not allowed, wasn't aware there is video surveillance that might actually catch him.

So I'd claim MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") not being explicit to not apply for GPLv3 code is not a valid excuse. (Which doesn't mean the kernel couldn't improve here.)

Best regards
Uwe




[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Big List of Linux Books]

  Powered by Linux