On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 12:56:20PM +0100, Daniel Gomez wrote: > On Thu Nov 14, 2024 at 11:31 AM CET, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > Tuxedo licenses the modules used on their hardware under GPLv3+, to > > "keep control of the upstream pacing" – and want to re-license the code > > while upstreaming. > > > > They were asked to then at least not use MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") which > > declares compatibility to the kernel's GPLv2. They accepted the pull > > request and shortly after reverted the change and so continue to lie > > about the license. > > > > So teach the module loader that these modules are proprietary despite > > their declaration to be GPLv2 compatible "until the legal stuff is > > sorted out". > > > > Link: https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=02b4686b-633f7d5d-02b5e324-74fe485cbff1-8cd9af635fd1f7c7&q=1&e=5f0a08bc-f529-4e41-a7a1-5aa45c54b8d9&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgitlab.com%2Ftuxedocomputers%2Fdevelopment%2Fpackages%2Ftuxedo-drivers%2F-%2Fcommit%2Fa8c09b6c2ce6393fe39d8652d133af9f06cfb427 > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > kernel/module/main.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/module/main.c b/kernel/module/main.c > > index 878191c65efc..46badbb09d5e 100644 > > --- a/kernel/module/main.c > > +++ b/kernel/module/main.c > > @@ -2338,6 +2338,39 @@ static const char *module_license_offenders[] = { > > > > /* lve claims to be GPL but upstream won't provide source */ > > "lve", > > + > > + /* > > + * Tuxedo distributes their kernel modules under GPLv3, but intentially > Typo here. > > + * lies in their MODULE_LICENSE() calls. > > + * See https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=60e8a9e4-0163bcd2-60e922ab-74fe485cbff1-eff87fdcdb83953a&q=1&e=5f0a08bc-f529-4e41-a7a1-5aa45c54b8d9&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgitlab.com%2Ftuxedocomputers%2Fdevelopment%2Fpackages%2Ftuxedo-drivers%2F-%2Fcommit%2Fa8c09b6c2ce6393fe39d8652d133af9f06cfb427 > > + */ > > + "gxtp7380", > > + "ite_8291", > > + "ite_8291_lb", > > + "ite_8297", > > + "ite_829x", > > + "stk8321", > > + "tuxedo_compatibility_check", > > + "tuxedo_io", > > + "tuxedo_nb02_nvidia_power_ctrl", > > + "tuxedo_nb04_keyboard", > > + "tuxedo_nb04_wmi_ab", > > + "tuxedo_nb04_wmi_bs", > > + "tuxedo_nb04_sensors", > > + "tuxedo_nb04_power_profiles", > > + "tuxedo_nb04_kbd_backlight", > > + "tuxedo_nb05_keyboard", > > + "tuxedo_nb05_kbd_backlight", > > + "tuxedo_nb05_power_profiles", > > + "tuxedo_nb05_ec", > > + "tuxedo_nb05_sensors", > > + "tuxedo_nb05_fan_control", > > + "tuxi_acpi", > > + "tuxedo_tuxi_fan_control", > > + "clevo_wmi", > > + "tuxedo_keyboard", > > + "clevo_acpi", > > + "uniwill_wmi", > > }; > > This does not prevent module rename on their side and still bypass the > module license taint check right? Intent matters. If people rename their modules just to try to work around a check like this, and do not actually properly change the license of the code, it's obvious what they are doing is against the wishes of the project. thanks, greg k-h