On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 03:38:52AM -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
> >
> > Ndiswrapper loads and executes code with not GPLv2 compatible licences
> > in a way in the kernel that might be considered similar to a GPLv2'ed
> > userspace program dlopen() a dynamic library file with a not GPLv2
> > com
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The Linux kernel is licenced under the GPLv2.
>
> Ndiswrapper loads and executes code with not GPLv2 compatible licences
> in a way in the kernel that might be considered similar to a GPLv2'ed
> userspace program dlopen() a dynamic library file with a not GPLv2
> compatib
On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 12:50 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The Linux kernel is licenced under the GPLv2.
>
> Ndiswrapper loads and executes code with not GPLv2 compatible
> licences
> in a way in the kernel that might be considered similar to a GPLv2'ed
> userspace program dlopen() a dynamic librar
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 12:08:30AM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 15:53 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > I don't know what the circumstances are in this case, since the
> > description quoted was quite sketchy. I suggest that someone send a
> > clear description of the case t
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 02:00:31AM +0100, Michael Gerdau wrote:
> > > > IANAL, and I would therefore ask a lawyer whether, and if yes under
> > > > which circumstances, shipping a binary driver written for another OS
> > > > dynamically linked into the Linux kernel would not be a criminal
> > > >
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 12:42:08PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:36:19 -0500
> "Lee Revell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 30, 2008 1:54 PM, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > IANAL, and I would therefore ask a lawyer whether, and if yes under
> > > which circu
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:36:19 -0500
"Lee Revell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2008 1:54 PM, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > IANAL, and I would therefore ask a lawyer whether, and if yes under
> > which circumstances, shipping a binary driver written for another OS
> > dynamica
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 15:53 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I don't know what the circumstances are in this case, since the
> description quoted was quite sketchy. I suggest that someone send a
> clear description of the case to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to find out what
> GPLv2 implies about it.
I don'
David Newall wrote:
This idea that some symbols may only be
dynamically bound to GPL code is fallacy.
As I understand it, the point of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is not so much the
technical restriction (as you say, the module can lie or the user can
patch the kernel) but to indicate that the kernel d
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> IANAL, but I have serious doubts whether putting some glue layer between
> the GPL'ed code and the code with a not GPL compatible licence is really
> a legally effictive way of circumventing the GPL.
Just to refresh my memory, I re-read the GPLv2, and specifically the
licen
> > > IANAL, and I would therefore ask a lawyer whether, and if yes under
> > > which circumstances, shipping a binary driver written for another OS
> > > dynamically linked into the Linux kernel would not be a criminal offense.
> >
> > Please stop throwing around words like "criminal". If this i
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 03:26:27PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:43:27 EST, Lennart Sorensen said:
> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 08:45:38PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_munich_gpl.pdf
> > > http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf
> >
Combined reponses to many fragmented comments in this thread. No two
consecutive excerpts are from the same person.
> Interesting... I never heard about this `transferring ownership of a
> single copy not involving GPL'.
>
> Note that some lawyers claim that at trade shows, you should not hand
> I wouldn't quite say that. I wasn't going to comment, but...personally,
> I actually disagree with the assertions that ndiswrapper isn't causing
> proprietary code to link against GPL functions in the kernel (how is
> an NDIS implementation any different than a shim layer provided to
> load a gr
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 02:36:19PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2008 1:54 PM, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > IANAL, and I would therefore ask a lawyer whether, and if yes under
> > which circumstances, shipping a binary driver written for another OS
> > dynamically linked into
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:43:27 EST, Lennart Sorensen said:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 08:45:38PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_munich_gpl.pdf
> > http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf
>
> Good point. They seem to be the place that actually has enforced the
> G
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 08:45:38PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_munich_gpl.pdf
> http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf
Good point. They seem to be the place that actually has enforced the
GPL.
--
Len Sorensen
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Jan 30, 2008 1:54 PM, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IANAL, and I would therefore ask a lawyer whether, and if yes under
> which circumstances, shipping a binary driver written for another OS
> dynamically linked into the Linux kernel would not be a criminal offense.
>
Please stop thr
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 12:26:00PM -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
>> IANAL, but I have serious doubts whether putting some glue layer
>> between the GPL'ed code and the code with a not GPL compatible licence
>> is really a legally effictive way of circumventing the GPL.
>
> It
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 01:15:30PM -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 07:54:35PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > The GPL might only talk about distribution.
> >
> > But copyright law is not restricted to copying of work.
> >
> > IANAL, and I don't know abou the laws in other c
Adrian Bunk wrote:
IANAL, but I have serious doubts whether putting some glue layer between
the GPL'ed code and the code with a not GPL compatible licence is really
a legally effictive way of circumventing the GPL.
It may depend on the details of the "code with a not GPL compatible
licence".
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 07:54:35PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The GPL might only talk about distribution.
>
> But copyright law is not restricted to copying of work.
>
> IANAL, and I don't know abou the laws in other countries, but at least
> in Germany modifications of a copyrighted work requi
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 04:48:10PM -0800, Giridhar Pemmasani wrote:
> --- Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It is interesting that someone posting with an @gnu.org address claims
> > that dynamic linking of not GPLv2 compatible code into GPLv2 code was
> > not a copyright violation.
>
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 09:02:35PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 02:25 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > > > It is interesting that someone posting with an @gnu.org address claims
> > > > that dynamic linking of not GPLv2 compatible code into GPLv2 code was
> > > > not a copyrig
I think you'd be impressed at how little I care about this, and how little I
value my fellow hacker's legal opinions except for humor value.
Let ndiswrapper do the taint itself, let's revert the patch and add a damn
comment: Jon was right to clean up such unexplained crap.
Rusty.
--
To unsubscr
Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Zan Lynx wrote:
>> Jon Masters wrote:
>> > I wouldn't quite say that. I wasn't going to comment, but...personally,
>> > I actually disagree with the assertions that ndiswrapper isn't causing
>> > proprietary code to link against
Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Mans Rullgard wrote:
>> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:25:22PM +, Mans Rullgard wrote:
>> >> As long as you don't distribute /proc/kcore, I can't see how the GPL
>> >> would have any
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Zan Lynx wrote:
> Jon Masters wrote:
> > I wouldn't quite say that. I wasn't going to comment, but...personally,
> > I actually disagree with the assertions that ndiswrapper isn't causing
> > proprietary code to link against GPL functions in the kernel (how is
> > an NDIS imple
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, M�ns Rullg�rd wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:25:22PM +, M�ns Rullg�rd wrote:
> >> As long as you don't distribute /proc/kcore, I can't see how the GPL
> >> would have any say in the matter. The Windows drivers are (unrelated
Quoting Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
*/
@@ -162,6 +163,7 @@ const char *print_tainted(void)
if (tainted) {
snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "Tainted: %c%c%c%c%c%c%c%c",
tainted & TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE ? '
Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> */
> @@ -162,6 +163,7 @@ const char *print_tainted(void)
> if (tainted) {
> snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "Tainted: %c%c%c%c%c%c%c%c",
> tainted & TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE ? 'P' : 'G',
> + tainte
Jon Masters wrote:
I wouldn't quite say that. I wasn't going to comment, but...personally,
I actually disagree with the assertions that ndiswrapper isn't causing
proprietary code to link against GPL functions in the kernel (how is
an NDIS implementation any different than a shim layer provided t
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 05:07 +, Jon Masters wrote:
> *). Add a new taint?
> *). Move it later?
>
> It's all trivial, but a policy should be established for the future.
I'd prefer a new taint. It's less likely to break. It provides more
information in the stack dumps. It makes it clear the d
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 04:24:50AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > static inline void add_taint_module(struct module *mod, unsigned flag)
> > {
> > add_taint(flag);
> > mod->taints |= flag;
> > }
> >
> > The module taint is set before the
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 08:48:21PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 19:20 -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
>
> > Yes it is. But I thought the existing code was intending to taint the
> > kernel (that's what it does), so it would really help to identify why it
> > tainted the kernel, by
Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> static inline void add_taint_module(struct module *mod, unsigned flag)
> {
> add_taint(flag);
> mod->taints |= flag;
> }
>
> The module taint is set before the symbols are resolved. Therefore, the
> GPL-only symbols won't be resolved.
I
On Jan 29 2008 20:48, Pavel Roskin wrote:
>On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 19:20 -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
>
>> Yes it is. But I thought the existing code was intending to taint the
>> kernel (that's what it does), so it would really help to identify why it
>> tainted the kernel, by calling add_taint_module
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 02:25 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > It is interesting that someone posting with an @gnu.org address claims
> > > that dynamic linking of not GPLv2 compatible code into GPLv2 code was
> > > not a copyright violation.
> >
> > No, I'm representing myself only. I don't think
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 19:20 -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
> Yes it is. But I thought the existing code was intending to taint the
> kernel (that's what it does), so it would really help to identify why it
> tainted the kernel, by calling add_taint_module instead of add_taint. I
> didn't put the existi
On Tuesday 29 January 2008 19:46:06 Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:25:22PM +, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> >> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 04:22:45PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> >> >> Hello!
> >>
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 19:48 -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 01:35 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > On Jan 29 2008 19:20, Jon Masters wrote:
>
> > >Another fix would be for ndiswrapper to explicitly set the taint when it
> > >loads a tainted driver? Or do we just want to go back t
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:25:22PM +, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 04:22:45PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
>> >> Hello!
>> >>
>> >> It have come to my attention that a patch has been co
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 01:35 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Jan 29 2008 19:20, Jon Masters wrote:
> >Another fix would be for ndiswrapper to explicitly set the taint when it
> >loads a tainted driver? Or do we just want to go back to globally
> >"tainting" the kernel without assigning the blame
--- Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is interesting that someone posting with an @gnu.org address claims
> that dynamic linking of not GPLv2 compatible code into GPLv2 code was
> not a copyright violation.
There is no copyright violation: ndiswrapper is licensed under GPLv2. And the
Wi
On Jan 29 2008 19:20, Jon Masters wrote:
>On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 16:22 -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
>>
>> It have come to my attention that a patch has been committed to the
>> kernel with the explicit purpose of tainting ndiswrapper - the kernel
>> module allowing Windows NDIS drivers for Ethernet
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:25:22PM +, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 04:22:45PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> >> Hello!
> >>
> >> It have come to my attention that a patch has been committed to the
> >> kernel with the explicit purp
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 18:21 -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> Of course, ndiswrapper could taint itself as a module, but it would be a
> purely symbolic act, since the module would be loaded already, and the
> GPL-only symbols resolved.
I think that might be an acceptable alternative to the current e
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 06:44:27PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 00:57 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 04:22:45PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> > > Hello!
> > >
> > > It have come to my attention that a patch has been committed to the
> > > kernel with the
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 16:22 -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> Hello!
>
> It have come to my attention that a patch has been committed to the
> kernel with the explicit purpose of tainting ndiswrapper - the kernel
> module allowing Windows NDIS drivers for Ethernet and Wireless cards to
> be used by th
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 22:45 +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > - it's a fair game to taint the kernel in some way if ndiswrapper has
> > been loaded at some point, since tainting per se is just an indicator
> > that the kernel has been used in an unsupportable way
>
> That's all the patch appears to do.
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 00:57 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 04:22:45PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > It have come to my attention that a patch has been committed to the
> > kernel with the explicit purpose of tainting ndiswrapper - the kernel
> > module allowing
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 04:22:45PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
>> Hello!
>>
>> It have come to my attention that a patch has been committed to the
>> kernel with the explicit purpose of tainting ndiswrapper - the kernel
>> module allowing Windows NDIS driv
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 17:27 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:22:45 EST, Pavel Roskin said:
> > Hello!
> >
> > It have come to my attention that a patch has been committed to the
> > kernel with the explicit purpose of tainting ndiswrapper - the kernel
> > module allowing Wi
> It is interesting that someone posting with an @gnu.org address claims
> that dynamic linking of not GPLv2 compatible code into GPLv2 code was
> not a copyright violation.
>
> Is it an official statement of the FSF that such linking is considered
> legal?
Probably in the same way that gmail re
On Jan 30 2008 00:57, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> Hello!
>>
>> It have come to my attention that a patch has been committed to the
>> kernel with the explicit purpose of tainting ndiswrapper - the kernel
>> module allowing Windows NDIS drivers for Ethernet and Wireless cards to
>> be used by the kernel
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 04:22:45PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> Hello!
>
> It have come to my attention that a patch has been committed to the
> kernel with the explicit purpose of tainting ndiswrapper - the kernel
> module allowing Windows NDIS drivers for Ethernet and Wireless cards to
> be used
> - it's a fair game to taint the kernel in some way if ndiswrapper has
> been loaded at some point, since tainting per se is just an indicator
> that the kernel has been used in an unsupportable way
That's all the patch appears to do. Se the taint flag.
> - if this change stands, ndiswrapper wil
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> At some point, a compromise position of "Have ndiswrapper do the tainting
> if it loads something with contentious licensing" was suggested - whatever
> happened to that?
>
> (If for no other reason than if you load ndiswrapper for testing, and then
> do *not* actua
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:22:45 EST, Pavel Roskin said:
> Hello!
>
> It have come to my attention that a patch has been committed to the
> kernel with the explicit purpose of tainting ndiswrapper - the kernel
> module allowing Windows NDIS drivers for Ethernet and Wireless cards to
> be used by the k
Hello!
It have come to my attention that a patch has been committed to the
kernel with the explicit purpose of tainting ndiswrapper - the kernel
module allowing Windows NDIS drivers for Ethernet and Wireless cards to
be used by the kernel.
That's the commit in question:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=l
60 matches
Mail list logo
