Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On 08/19/2015 10:39 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:35 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> On 08/19/2015 09:24 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> >>> When you download software you receive a copy. You start out with >>> zero works. Somebody sends you a copy of that work. You write it to >>> disk. You end up with the same number of copies as you were given. >>> >>> Cite a court case that upholds a claim otherwise? >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMG_Recordings,_Inc._v._MP3.com,_Inc. >> > > mp3.com uploaded music as well as downloading it. Users didn't just > upload their songs to mp3.com. They then accessed that music from > other computers, so mp3.com was redistributing the music. > That's just the first in a long list. "Uploading is copying. Downloading is also copying. Unauthorized copying is an unauthorized use that is governed by the copyright laws. Therefore, unauthorized uploading and unauthorized downloading are unauthorized uses governed by the copyright laws" http://cases.justia.com/ohio/supreme-court-of-ohio/1998-ohio-422.pdf?ts=1396139663
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 10:43:05 PM Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Fernando Rodriguez > wrote: > > The GPL symbols are not necessary for interoperability. For that you need > > little more that access to the hardware and an interface to userspace. Most of > > those GPL symbols are convenience routines to enable reuse of code among > > different subsystems and drivers. > > Interesting argument. You're suggesting that NVidia could simply > bypass the kernel entirely by running their code in ring 0 and > directly accessing the hardware and intercepting system calls before > the kernel, sort of like a TSR back in the 80s. > > > Sure, I guess it would work. I don't think that is really the model > we want to be promoting though. Instead of building their drivers on > kernel headers they'd basically be building their drivers off of > rootkits. No, that would be extreme. I'm suggesting they could do it with the non-GPLd exports. I'm against the GPL symbols from a technical point of view though. -- Fernando Rodriguez
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Fernando Rodriguez wrote: > > Try a different exercise. Go buy a Quran. Now use it as a cryptographic key to > encrypt an email. Is the email now a derived work? That's no a perfect analogy > but it's more like what happens when you dynamic link a library. But that isn't what happens with dynamic linking. In the paragraph below, insert word 1 after the 3rd word in place of the xx, and insert word 2 after the 9th word in place of the xx. This is an xx of dynamic linking. I have a xx where various elements are replaced with others. Somebody else will tell you next week what word 1 and word 2 are. He owns the copyright on those words, but he will refer to them as word 1 and word 2. Dynamic linking doesn't render code unreadable the way encryption does. It just means that not all of the code is actually present. All the original code written by the author of the object file is actually present, and in completely executable form except where it accesses memory that isn't a part of the object file. You can actually execute parts of an object file as a result. > It's not the symbols that are copyrighted, it's the code that those symbols > load into your programs address space. The symbols don't load anything. The linker loads the external code into RAM, and inserts its address into your own code where it references the exported symbols. In the example above my instructions don't actually do anything. They just tell you what to do when you find out what words 1 and 2 are. > Here's a better example, see the Mona Lisa example in wikipedia[1]. Now, > suppose I write a small program that downloads a Mona Lisa picture of the > internet and displays it with a mustache overlaid? Is my program now a > derivative work of the Mona Lisa? That's *exactly* what happens when you > dynamic link to a library. That program would not be a derivative work of the Mona Lisa. The picture it displays would be a derivative work of the Mona Lisa. The analogy isn't perfect, but it is decent. Executing the program might or might not be a violation of copyright, but distributing the program itself would not be. At most you could argue it is inducing copyright violation, which is a horrible legal argument, but admittedly one that US courts have seemed to embrace. Go Mercia! -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Fernando Rodriguez wrote: > The GPL symbols are not necessary for interoperability. For that you need > little more that access to the hardware and an interface to userspace. Most of > those GPL symbols are convenience routines to enable reuse of code among > different subsystems and drivers. Interesting argument. You're suggesting that NVidia could simply bypass the kernel entirely by running their code in ring 0 and directly accessing the hardware and intercepting system calls before the kernel, sort of like a TSR back in the 80s. Sure, I guess it would work. I don't think that is really the model we want to be promoting though. Instead of building their drivers on kernel headers they'd basically be building their drivers off of rootkits. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:35 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 08/19/2015 09:24 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> When you download software you receive a copy. You start out with >> zero works. Somebody sends you a copy of that work. You write it to >> disk. You end up with the same number of copies as you were given. >> >> Cite a court case that upholds a claim otherwise? > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMG_Recordings,_Inc._v._MP3.com,_Inc. > mp3.com uploaded music as well as downloading it. Users didn't just upload their songs to mp3.com. They then accessed that music from other computers, so mp3.com was redistributing the music. Don't get me wrong, the recording studios claim that downloading music is also illegal. However in practice they've only pursued court cases against distributors. Here's the thing - propaganda is 90% of the battle for folks touting copyright. They only fight actual court cases that they think they're very likely to win. Fighting a court case and losing just encourages people to ignore you. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 9:20:41 PM Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > On 08/19/2015 08:37 PM, Fernando Rodriguez wrote: > >> > >> What's the purpose of these quotes? > >> Neither of them says it doesn't allow steps 1-3. Instead of doing selective > >> reading you should read the whole thing. If that's too much just read the first > >> few questions under "General understanding of the GPL" on the FAQ. > >> > > > > The point was that the GPL doesn't allow shit unless the copyright > > holders grant you the license in the first place. > > > > And they have, in writing. You can copy the kernel all you want under > the terms of the GPL. > > If you want to redistribute the kernel or a derivative work of it, > then you need to also distribute your sources. A binary module author > isn't doing that, so they don't need anybody's permission. > > You only need a license to do things that are forbidden by copyright > law. In general you can't bind licenses to unrelated activities. I > can't say that you have the right to use my software as long as you > don't beat your wife. Well, I can say it, but no court would enforce > it. Likewise you can't give somebody permission to use GPL software > under the condition that they don't distribute other software which > has nothing to do with your software other than containing a few > symbol names in the linking table. > > Try this exercise. Go buy a Quran. Now replace every occurrence of > the word "Mohammed" with "Fred." This email is now dynamically linked > to a book that I've never bought or read. Are you going to argue that > this email is a derivative work of the Quran? Suppose I told you to > grab your scientology bible and rip out page 3. Is that now grounds > for me to be sued by the Church of Scientology, on the basis that I > just cross-referenced their copyrighted work? After all, I did quote > one of their page numbers. Try a different exercise. Go buy a Quran. Now use it as a cryptographic key to encrypt an email. Is the email now a derived work? That's no a perfect analogy but it's more like what happens when you dynamic link a library. It's not the symbols that are copyrighted, it's the code that those symbols load into your programs address space. Here's a better example, see the Mona Lisa example in wikipedia[1]. Now, suppose I write a small program that downloads a Mona Lisa picture of the internet and displays it with a mustache overlaid? Is my program now a derivative work of the Mona Lisa? That's *exactly* what happens when you dynamic link to a library. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work#Examples_of_derivative_works_under_U.S._law -- Fernando Rodriguez
Re: [gentoo-user] Anyone using xfce4 with compositing turned off?
Le 2015-08-19 22:18, walt a écrit : I'm seeing horrible performance from the xfce window manager (xfwm4) on my main, everyday machine, but not on an older backup machine or on any of the linux virtual machines I run on virtualbox. The symptoms: moving a window with the mouse is so slow as to be painful, and the CPU usage (on one of four CPUs) jumps to 100% almost immediately (xfwm4 is the culprit, see below). If I open an xterm and run (for example) "/usr/bin/marco --replace", this sluggish behavior returns to normal immediately. After wasting hours on google I finally noticed that I had compiled x11-wm/xfwm4 with the xcomposite useflag disabled, so I enabled it and re-emerged xfwm4. Now I can get decent performance from xfwm4, but only if first I turn on compositing by running xfwm4-tweaks-settings. (No, not by running the puny and feeble xfwm4-settings app: I need to invoke a "tweak" to make xfce4 an acceptable Desktop Environment on my main desktop machine. I remember going through this same frustration with gnome3, which was (and is) unusable without installing the gnome-tweak-tool package and using it to customize settings that I still don't understand. (That's why I finally gave up on gnome3, and I may yet give up on xfce4 and go back to mate.) Note that I'm not turning off yet, but I should mention that this machine is ~amd64 with ati-drivers-15.7 and vanilla kernel 3.14.51. (Same problem with gentoo-sources-3.18.19, BTW.) That is strange, disabling this crap should bring sanity back. I have always thought that this was designed to slow down PCs that were too fast. Joke aside, You must be using the "free" video driver, no surprise there, it is junk. Since I could only get the so called free driver on my wife's ATI video I bought her an Nvidia card and installed the proprietary driver, now it works perfectly (with Mate, I don't really care for gnome 3 or xfwm) -- For Linux Software visit http://home.comcast.net/~mcatudal http://sourceforge.net/projects/suzielinux/
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 9:09:59 PM Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Fernando Rodriguez > wrote: > > > > The law is not clear about that. But how can it not be a derived work if it > > doesn't work without it? > > > > A is only a derived work of B if the law says it is. The letter of the law is constantly changing. I'll grant that your argument is more inline with the letter of the law because the law wasn't written with this specific case in mind. But the FSF's argument is more inline with it's spirit. Until a court decides one way or the other it's just a grey are so there's no point in arguing. > My pot isn't a derived work of my stove. My browser isn't a derived > work of the kernel it runs on. > > Copyright law doesn't talk about interoperability when it comes to > derived works. It talks about translations, adaptations, etc. These > are derived works because they incorporate substantial portions of the > original work. MST3K incorporates substantial portions of the movies > they're parodying. Rifftrax does not. That is the difference. > > A kernel module does not incorporate substantial portions of the kernel. > > And interoperability is actually a legal defense against copyright. > If the only way to make something interoperate with something else is > to partially copy it, the court tends to view that as fair use. The GPL symbols are not necessary for interoperability. For that you need little more that access to the hardware and an interface to userspace. Most of those GPL symbols are convenience routines to enable reuse of code among different subsystems and drivers. -- Fernando Rodriguez
[gentoo-user] Anyone using xfce4 with compositing turned off?
I'm seeing horrible performance from the xfce window manager (xfwm4) on my main, everyday machine, but not on an older backup machine or on any of the linux virtual machines I run on virtualbox. The symptoms: moving a window with the mouse is so slow as to be painful, and the CPU usage (on one of four CPUs) jumps to 100% almost immediately (xfwm4 is the culprit, see below). If I open an xterm and run (for example) "/usr/bin/marco --replace", this sluggish behavior returns to normal immediately. After wasting hours on google I finally noticed that I had compiled x11-wm/xfwm4 with the xcomposite useflag disabled, so I enabled it and re-emerged xfwm4. Now I can get decent performance from xfwm4, but only if first I turn on compositing by running xfwm4-tweaks-settings. (No, not by running the puny and feeble xfwm4-settings app: I need to invoke a "tweak" to make xfce4 an acceptable Desktop Environment on my main desktop machine. I remember going through this same frustration with gnome3, which was (and is) unusable without installing the gnome-tweak-tool package and using it to customize settings that I still don't understand. (That's why I finally gave up on gnome3, and I may yet give up on xfce4 and go back to mate.) Note that I'm not turning off yet, but I should mention that this machine is ~amd64 with ati-drivers-15.7 and vanilla kernel 3.14.51. (Same problem with gentoo-sources-3.18.19, BTW.)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Fernando Rodriguez > wrote: >> The law is not clear about that. But how can it not be a derived work if it >> doesn't work without it? >> > A is only a derived work of B if the law says it is. > > My pot isn't a derived work of my stove. My browser isn't a derived > work of the kernel it runs on. > > Copyright law doesn't talk about interoperability when it comes to > derived works. It talks about translations, adaptations, etc. These > are derived works because they incorporate substantial portions of the > original work. MST3K incorporates substantial portions of the movies > they're parodying. Rifftrax does not. That is the difference. > > A kernel module does not incorporate substantial portions of the kernel. > > And interoperability is actually a legal defense against copyright. > If the only way to make something interoperate with something else is > to partially copy it, the court tends to view that as fair use. > I'm no lawyer but I do sometimes research court stuff, tho not this topic. This is my opinion. I download a kernel, I compile it and then I boot that kernel. I download the Nvidia driver, install it and then load that driver so that my video card works. First, I'm not distributing nothing. I'm only using it. Actually, likely few other computers would work with my kernel config and Nvidia module since after the compile and install, they tend to become machine specific, especially on Gentoo. Second, the two things are still two different things. The kernel is still the kernel and the Nvidia driver is still the driver. The driver just "plugs in" the kernel so that the GUI can be displayed. I'm sure a wall plug has a patent or something for its design and purpose. If I can't plug in my toaster or my puter, then what is the point of having the plug at all? Basically, the kernel devs need to look at it like this. If I can't have a GUI on my puter, I can't "surf" the web. If I can't surf the web, what is the point of the puter or the kernel? Just like, what would be the point in me having a toaster if every company that produces wall plugs tells me I can't use the plug for toasters? I want a GUI. I also want my freaking toaster. :-) I think this is sort of the same point you are making by the way. ;-) Here's hoping they get this sorted out before I have to go buy a Mac or start using something besides a Linux kernel. :-@ Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On 08/19/2015 09:24 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > When you download software you receive a copy. You start out with > zero works. Somebody sends you a copy of that work. You write it to > disk. You end up with the same number of copies as you were given. > > Cite a court case that upholds a claim otherwise? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMG_Recordings,_Inc._v._MP3.com,_Inc. I don't personally like or even believe in copyright, so I'm getting sick of arguing for it. Don't take it the wrong way if I give up on this thread =)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Jeremi Piotrowski wrote: > > This discussion has been going on ever since the kernel was first > conceived, and some matters are still not entirely clear. Honestly, I don't think they'll be any consensus on this argument until a court makes some kind of ruling. That isn't likely to happen anytime soon. And I suspect that any ruling that gets made will be wrong in any case. But, it will at least have the force of law so that even though you're wrong you can at least use it to ruin lives with statutory minimums. I don't really see a lot of profit in going back and forth on this. I've had arguments on the lists with Greg KH over similar issues. People have strong opinions, and there isn't a lot of case law, and that makes for long arguments. In the end people choose to believe what they believe. If you want to go with authority you're probably best off sticking with the opinion you already have and you'll be in good company. Personally, I've never really cared that much whether others think I'm right or not... :) -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 08/19/2015 09:05 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >>> >>> Anything you can do without the kernel source code is legal, sure. But >>> we're talking about... >>> >>> 1. Downloading the kernel source (making a copy of) it. >> >> You're receiving a copy of it. You don't need a license to download >> something. You'll notice that even the RIAA doesn't sue people who >> download music - they sue people who UPLOAD it. They are on far more >> solid legal ground doing the latter. > > Uhh > >> Please cite a law that says you're not allowed to receive a copy of a >> copyrighted work without a license. > > § 106 . Exclusive rights in copyrighted works > > Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this > title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: > > (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies When you download software you receive a copy. You start out with zero works. Somebody sends you a copy of that work. You write it to disk. You end up with the same number of copies as you were given. Cite a court case that upholds a claim otherwise? In any case, the Linux kernel authors have already given people permission to make unmodified copies of the kernel, which is all that is happening in step 1. So, this is not an essential element of my argument. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 08/19/2015 08:37 PM, Fernando Rodriguez wrote: >> >> What's the purpose of these quotes? >> Neither of them says it doesn't allow steps 1-3. Instead of doing selective >> reading you should read the whole thing. If that's too much just read the >> first >> few questions under "General understanding of the GPL" on the FAQ. >> > > The point was that the GPL doesn't allow shit unless the copyright > holders grant you the license in the first place. > And they have, in writing. You can copy the kernel all you want under the terms of the GPL. If you want to redistribute the kernel or a derivative work of it, then you need to also distribute your sources. A binary module author isn't doing that, so they don't need anybody's permission. You only need a license to do things that are forbidden by copyright law. In general you can't bind licenses to unrelated activities. I can't say that you have the right to use my software as long as you don't beat your wife. Well, I can say it, but no court would enforce it. Likewise you can't give somebody permission to use GPL software under the condition that they don't distribute other software which has nothing to do with your software other than containing a few symbol names in the linking table. Try this exercise. Go buy a Quran. Now replace every occurrence of the word "Mohammed" with "Fred." This email is now dynamically linked to a book that I've never bought or read. Are you going to argue that this email is a derivative work of the Quran? Suppose I told you to grab your scientology bible and rip out page 3. Is that now grounds for me to be sued by the Church of Scientology, on the basis that I just cross-referenced their copyrighted work? After all, I did quote one of their page numbers. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 08/19/2015 07:40 PM, Fernando Rodriguez wrote: >>> >>> 1. Downloading the kernel source (making a copy of) it. >>> 2. Patching it. >>> 3. Linking it with closed source code. >>> 4. Distributing the result. >>> >>> (If that's not what you have in mind, maybe we are at cross purposes). >>> >>> Step #1 is illegal unless you have a licence. The burden of proof is on >>> you to show that you were allowed to do it. >> >> You have the license, the GPL allows you to do steps 1-3. > > The GPL would, if the authors granted it to you, but they don't. > Selectively quoting... > > 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program > except as expressly provided under this License... Great, then they can copy it under the terms of the license. And they're not redistributing the kernel, or any derived work of the kernel, so the terms about distributing sources don't apply. > The authors have been as clear as possible, even imposing a little > technical roadblock to the effect, that they do not grant you the GPL > under the aforementioned circumstances. The GPL faq mentions this, > > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#LinkingWithGPL > > so the intent of anyone releasing their code under GPL-2 is clear. So, who cares what they think? They don't get to write the law. When Linus says stuff that is smart, I'll admire him for it. When he says stuff that is dumb, I'm not afraid to say that the emperor has no clothes. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On 08/19/2015 09:05 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> >> Anything you can do without the kernel source code is legal, sure. But >> we're talking about... >> >> 1. Downloading the kernel source (making a copy of) it. > > You're receiving a copy of it. You don't need a license to download > something. You'll notice that even the RIAA doesn't sue people who > download music - they sue people who UPLOAD it. They are on far more > solid legal ground doing the latter. Uhh > Please cite a law that says you're not allowed to receive a copy of a > copyrighted work without a license. § 106 . Exclusive rights in copyrighted works Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
Le 2015-08-19 20:48, Michael Orlitzky a écrit : On 08/19/2015 08:37 PM, Fernando Rodriguez wrote: What's the purpose of these quotes? Neither of them says it doesn't allow steps 1-3. Instead of doing selective reading you should read the whole thing. If that's too much just read the first few questions under "General understanding of the GPL" on the FAQ. The point was that the GPL doesn't allow shit unless the copyright holders grant you the license in the first place. Then why is it that the changes only allows shit? -- For Linux Software visit http://home.comcast.net/~mcatudal http://sourceforge.net/projects/suzielinux/
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Fernando Rodriguez wrote: > > The law is not clear about that. But how can it not be a derived work if it > doesn't work without it? > A is only a derived work of B if the law says it is. My pot isn't a derived work of my stove. My browser isn't a derived work of the kernel it runs on. Copyright law doesn't talk about interoperability when it comes to derived works. It talks about translations, adaptations, etc. These are derived works because they incorporate substantial portions of the original work. MST3K incorporates substantial portions of the movies they're parodying. Rifftrax does not. That is the difference. A kernel module does not incorporate substantial portions of the kernel. And interoperability is actually a legal defense against copyright. If the only way to make something interoperate with something else is to partially copy it, the court tends to view that as fair use. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Fernando Rodriguez wrote: > > I'm not a lawyer but as I understand it, it's not on the "letter of the law" > because it's a technical issue and the law hasn't caught up. > > My view, and what I think is most in the spirit of the law, is that it is a > derived work simply because it doesn't work without those GPL exports. > My car doesn't work without tires. Does it mean that Kia needs a license from Michelin to make cars? -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > Anything you can do without the kernel source code is legal, sure. But > we're talking about... > > 1. Downloading the kernel source (making a copy of) it. You're receiving a copy of it. You don't need a license to download something. You'll notice that even the RIAA doesn't sue people who download music - they sue people who UPLOAD it. They are on far more solid legal ground doing the latter. > 2. Patching it. > 3. Linking it with closed source code. You're not linking the kernel with closed source code. You're linking closed source code with the kernel. You're not making any changes to the kernel itself in the process. I'm not even sure why you'd have to patch the kernel. > 4. Distributing the result. You're distributing the closed source part that you wrote. You don't have to redistribute the kernel, since the intended recipient of your driver already has it. The only bits of the kernel that end up in the code you distribute are some symbol names. > > Step #1 is illegal unless you have a licence. The burden of proof is on > you to show that you were allowed to do it. Please cite a law that says you're not allowed to receive a copy of a copyrighted work without a license. Even if that were so, the GPL gives you permission to make as many unmodified copies of the kernel as you wish. > I'm not going to go look up whatever statute says "you can't make a copy > of copyrighted stuff" =P You're not copying anything that is copyrighted by Linus and co, and that is my point. Just what is AMD/Nvidia distributing that Linus wrote? -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Jeremi Piotrowski
wrote:
>
> They could, but I was under the impression that by using licensed software
> you agree to follow it's terms. And the binding nature of licenses is
> codified in copyright law.
You don't need a license to use software. You need a license to copy software.
>
> Copyright law talks of licenses. Linus' talks about the license under
> which the kernel is licensed. Ergo, seems to me as though his words
> should have some authority,
All law talks of people. I'm a person. Therefore it sounds like my
words should have some authority.
That really is no different an argument. You can't just stick
anything you want under the heading "license agreement" and enforce
it.
> but I won't argue that.
Uh, you just did.
>
>> And none of them say a word about linking creating a derived work.
>
> The FSF says that and who knows if they're actually right, but I believe
> so far everyone generally complies with their interpretation.
Well, you're talking to somebody who doesn't, so "everyone" is a bit
of a strong word.
>
>> And would we really want to live in a world where they did? Do you
>> really want to need permission to use a product in a manner the author
>> didn't originally intend?
>
> Proprietary licenses already say that I can't do that, and it's the free
> licenses that tell me I can do whatever I want as long as I release the
> sources. Sounds reasonable to me.
I see, and because proprietary licenses purport to do all kinds of
horrible things, we ought to emulate them? I don't suggest that those
licenses are any more legal with regard to these specific details.
>
> But again, I'm speaking mostly out of common sense and opinion here.
> Neither one of us is going to go around citing cases and laws as that
> would be a waste of bandwidth.
It wouldn't waste much bandwidth, because there aren't any relevant
laws or cases. That is my whole point. I can't cite them, because
they don't exist. In the absence of law, there is liberty.
The onus is really on you to prove that somebody ISN'T allowed to do
something, not for them to prove that they can.
>
>> All they have to do is have the human-readable license say non-GPL,
>> and have it report GPL to the kernel, and not ship the source. The
>> only recourse anybody has is to sue them, and it is doubtful that a
>> court is going to force them to comply, as they clearly indicated
>> their intent to not release the code as GPL.
>
> On the other hand they would also be clearly indicating to others that
> their code is GPL (if they did in fact add MODULE_LICENSE("GPL")). I may
> be wrong here, but if that is not in the least bit ambiguous then shoot me.
I guess that is why I said that it is a bit ambiguous in the part that
you chose not to quote:
You might be able to get away with redistributing the blob since the
situation is a bit ambiguous, but I doubt the driver manufacturers
care that much if you redistribute their blobs.
Here is the thing, you can use the law as a sword or a shield. You
want to use it as a sword, which puts the onus on you to prove that
the law says what you think it says to take any action at all.
Sure, if you argue the driver is really GPL you might be able to
defend yourself from a copyright claim by the author of the driver.
However, they really don't care if you redistribute it anyway. On the
other hand, if you want to force them to release the source to their
driver you have an uphill battle. Even if they released their driver
under the GPL that STILL doesn't compel them to release the source to
it. It just means that YOU have to give anybody you distribute the
driver to any sources you were given. Licenses are granted to the
recipient of code. They don't affect the copyright holder.
>
> To me it seems like it is not hard to bypass, but it would be *atleast*
> indecent.
>
There is nothing indecent about bypassing the efforts of somebody who
wants to regulate the end-use of software.
--
Rich
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On 08/19/2015 08:37 PM, Fernando Rodriguez wrote: > > What's the purpose of these quotes? > Neither of them says it doesn't allow steps 1-3. Instead of doing selective > reading you should read the whole thing. If that's too much just read the > first > few questions under "General understanding of the GPL" on the FAQ. > The point was that the GPL doesn't allow shit unless the copyright holders grant you the license in the first place.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
Michel Catudal wrote: > Le 2015-08-19 20:04, Michael Orlitzky a écrit : >> On 08/19/2015 07:40 PM, Fernando Rodriguez wrote: 1. Downloading the kernel source (making a copy of) it. 2. Patching it. 3. Linking it with closed source code. 4. Distributing the result. (If that's not what you have in mind, maybe we are at cross purposes). Step #1 is illegal unless you have a licence. The burden of proof is on you to show that you were allowed to do it. >>> You have the license, the GPL allows you to do steps 1-3. >> The GPL would, if the authors granted it to you, but they don't. >> Selectively quoting... >> >>4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program >> except as expressly provided under this License... >> >>5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not >> signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify >> or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions >> are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License... >> >> The authors have been as clear as possible, even imposing a little >> technical roadblock to the effect, that they do not grant you the GPL >> under the aforementioned circumstances. The GPL faq mentions this, >> >> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#LinkingWithGPL >> >> >> so the intent of anyone releasing their code under GPL-2 is clear. >> >> >> > The changes made have for reason to keep people from having an > acceptable display. This would not hold in court. > This move from the dev could seriously hurt the community on the long > run for many reason. > > No sane person will accept a crappy display. If the dev do not care it > is likely that they are not using Linux as a desktop so you should > stick to their windows, mac, xbox or playstation and stop pissing off > the Linux users. > > Michel > That's why I said earlier, if the kernel devs don't like that Nvidia is distributing their drivers as binaries, let them protest with their crappy display. For the rest of us that want the official Nvidia drivers, let us use them like we been doing for ages now. If I want open source video drivers, I know how to get them. Thing is, I want what I have now. I also want to be able to update my kernel and drivers on occasion too. So, kernel devs, stare at a console all you want but I want a GUI with Nvidia drivers, I'm guessing the ATI users what their ATI drivers as well. What crap!! Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 8:04:01 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 08/19/2015 07:40 PM, Fernando Rodriguez wrote: > >> > >> 1. Downloading the kernel source (making a copy of) it. > >> 2. Patching it. > >> 3. Linking it with closed source code. > >> 4. Distributing the result. > >> > >> (If that's not what you have in mind, maybe we are at cross purposes). > >> > >> Step #1 is illegal unless you have a licence. The burden of proof is on > >> you to show that you were allowed to do it. > > > > You have the license, the GPL allows you to do steps 1-3. > > The GPL would, if the authors granted it to you, but they don't. > Selectively quoting... > > 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program > except as expressly provided under this License... > > 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not > signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify > or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions > are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License... > > The authors have been as clear as possible, even imposing a little > technical roadblock to the effect, that they do not grant you the GPL > under the aforementioned circumstances. The GPL faq mentions this, > > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#LinkingWithGPL > > so the intent of anyone releasing their code under GPL-2 is clear. What's the purpose of these quotes? Neither of them says it doesn't allow steps 1-3. Instead of doing selective reading you should read the whole thing. If that's too much just read the first few questions under "General understanding of the GPL" on the FAQ. -- Fernando Rodriguez
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
Le 2015-08-19 20:04, Michael Orlitzky a écrit : On 08/19/2015 07:40 PM, Fernando Rodriguez wrote: 1. Downloading the kernel source (making a copy of) it. 2. Patching it. 3. Linking it with closed source code. 4. Distributing the result. (If that's not what you have in mind, maybe we are at cross purposes). Step #1 is illegal unless you have a licence. The burden of proof is on you to show that you were allowed to do it. You have the license, the GPL allows you to do steps 1-3. The GPL would, if the authors granted it to you, but they don't. Selectively quoting... 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License... 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License... The authors have been as clear as possible, even imposing a little technical roadblock to the effect, that they do not grant you the GPL under the aforementioned circumstances. The GPL faq mentions this, https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#LinkingWithGPL so the intent of anyone releasing their code under GPL-2 is clear. The changes made have for reason to keep people from having an acceptable display. This would not hold in court. This move from the dev could seriously hurt the community on the long run for many reason. No sane person will accept a crappy display. If the dev do not care it is likely that they are not using Linux as a desktop so you should stick to their windows, mac, xbox or playstation and stop pissing off the Linux users. Michel -- For Linux Software visit http://home.comcast.net/~mcatudal http://sourceforge.net/projects/suzielinux/
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On 08/19/2015 07:40 PM, Fernando Rodriguez wrote: >> >> 1. Downloading the kernel source (making a copy of) it. >> 2. Patching it. >> 3. Linking it with closed source code. >> 4. Distributing the result. >> >> (If that's not what you have in mind, maybe we are at cross purposes). >> >> Step #1 is illegal unless you have a licence. The burden of proof is on >> you to show that you were allowed to do it. > > You have the license, the GPL allows you to do steps 1-3. The GPL would, if the authors granted it to you, but they don't. Selectively quoting... 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License... 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License... The authors have been as clear as possible, even imposing a little technical roadblock to the effect, that they do not grant you the GPL under the aforementioned circumstances. The GPL faq mentions this, https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#LinkingWithGPL so the intent of anyone releasing their code under GPL-2 is clear.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
Le 2015-08-19 19:14, Michael Orlitzky a écrit : On 08/19/2015 06:21 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: Copyright law makes everything illegal. Downloading the source and reading it is illegal. Why wouldn't it be illegal? The copyright holders have made it clear that you have no license to do so. If I distribute a binary kernel module, I'm not copying anything that I didn't write. I'm the copyright holder of the binary kernel module. Anything you can do without the kernel source code is legal, sure. But we're talking about... 1. Downloading the kernel source (making a copy of) it. 2. Patching it. 3. Linking it with closed source code. 4. Distributing the result. (If that's not what you have in mind, maybe we are at cross purposes). Step #1 is illegal unless you have a licence. The burden of proof is on you to show that you were allowed to do it. That is why I want you to actually look up the letter of the law, because if the specific action being done isn't in the letter of the law, then those claiming copyright have an uphill battle ahead of them. I'm not going to go look up whatever statute says "you can't make a copy of copyrighted stuff" =P All the Linux manufacturer has to do is provide a kernel with the bullshit parts removed. It can provide a script to install the proprietary driver. A judge would throw out of court any ridiculous complaint about someone installing a good video driver on their computer because they do not like the trash that came with it. Manufacturers of video cards have plenty of customers with Winblows and MAC. They cannot afford to release information that their competition can use to steal their market share. Business is a very competitive market, industrial espionage is not the only thing companies have to worry about it. Our choice here is either to have a decent display or crap, my choice is the first. For the dev of the kernel to attempt to keep us from having decent display is uncalled for. The day I will use nouveau instead of the good nvidia driver as my father use to say, in the week of three thursdays. -- For Linux Software visit http://home.comcast.net/~mcatudal http://sourceforge.net/projects/suzielinux/
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 7:14:19 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 08/19/2015 06:21 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> > >> Copyright law makes everything illegal. Downloading the source and > >> reading it is illegal. Why wouldn't it be illegal? The copyright holders > >> have made it clear that you have no license to do so. > >> > > > > If I distribute a binary kernel module, I'm not copying anything that > > I didn't write. I'm the copyright holder of the binary kernel module. > > > > Anything you can do without the kernel source code is legal, sure. But > we're talking about... > > 1. Downloading the kernel source (making a copy of) it. > 2. Patching it. > 3. Linking it with closed source code. > 4. Distributing the result. > > (If that's not what you have in mind, maybe we are at cross purposes). > > Step #1 is illegal unless you have a licence. The burden of proof is on > you to show that you were allowed to do it. You have the license, the GPL allows you to do steps 1-3. Step 4 is only illegal if it's a derived work, so the question, as Rich stated, is whether or nor is a derived work. The law is not clear about that. But how can it not be a derived work if it doesn't work without it? > > > > That is why I want you to actually look up the letter of the law, > > because if the specific action being done isn't in the letter of the > > law, then those claiming copyright have an uphill battle ahead of > > them. > > > > I'm not going to go look up whatever statute says "you can't make a copy > of copyrighted stuff" =P > > -- Fernando Rodriguez
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 5:28:37 PM Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Fernando Rodriguez > wrote: > > > > The illegal part is not loading it but distributing the blob that depends on > > the GPL exports. > > What makes it illegal? Quote the text of the relevant statute or > court case. That is the issue here. People argue that linking > creates a derivative work, and I think that at best it only creates a > derivative work after the image ends up in RAM. The blob itself > doesn't contain any kernel code, unless you count a bunch of symbol > names. And that is API copyrighting, which is a horrible idea (though > one the US seems to be entertaining now all the same; Murcia!). I'm not a lawyer but as I understand it, it's not on the "letter of the law" because it's a technical issue and the law hasn't caught up. My view, and what I think is most in the spirit of the law, is that it is a derived work simply because it doesn't work without those GPL exports. -- Fernando Rodriguez
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On 08/19/2015 06:21 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> Copyright law makes everything illegal. Downloading the source and >> reading it is illegal. Why wouldn't it be illegal? The copyright holders >> have made it clear that you have no license to do so. >> > > If I distribute a binary kernel module, I'm not copying anything that > I didn't write. I'm the copyright holder of the binary kernel module. > Anything you can do without the kernel source code is legal, sure. But we're talking about... 1. Downloading the kernel source (making a copy of) it. 2. Patching it. 3. Linking it with closed source code. 4. Distributing the result. (If that's not what you have in mind, maybe we are at cross purposes). Step #1 is illegal unless you have a licence. The burden of proof is on you to show that you were allowed to do it. > > That is why I want you to actually look up the letter of the law, > because if the specific action being done isn't in the letter of the > law, then those claiming copyright have an uphill battle ahead of > them. > I'm not going to go look up whatever statute says "you can't make a copy of copyrighted stuff" =P
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Jeremi Piotrowski
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >
> >> It sounds like you not only expect them to comply with the license,
> >> but also with the kernel devs personal interpretation of copyright
> >> law.
> >
> > What is a license but a statement of the intent of the authors as to what
> > can and can't be done with their work? Well, it does have some legal force
> > too...
>
> The only reason that licenses matter at all is that they have legal
> force. They only matter to the degree that they do.
This discussion has been going on ever since the kernel was first
conceived, and some matters are still not entirely clear. I have tried
reading about the subject and the discussion is always the same as the one
we're having in this thread.
What I consider a final word on the matter is pretty much written here:
https://lwn.net/Articles/154602/
briefly: the kernel devs *have* consulted lawyers and believe EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
has *some* legal meaning.
But I am not a lawyer, nor do I want to be so let's tune down the law
stuff and get back to technical issues.
> > If you'd try to take away their right to decide about that next thing
> > they'd do is modify the license to be even larger and explicitly cover all
> > corner cases.
>
> And that would accomplish nothing, since companies would just ignore
> any text which doesn't have a basis in law.
They could, but I was under the impression that by using licensed software
you agree to follow it's terms. And the binding nature of licenses is
codified in copyright law.
> The problem is that Linus's words mean nothing unless they're based in
> law. You don't need to quote Linus. You need to quote laws, court
> decisions, or treaties.
Copyright law talks of licenses. Linus' talks about the license under
which the kernel is licensed. Ergo, seems to me as though his words
should have some authority, but I won't argue that.
> And none of them say a word about linking creating a derived work.
The FSF says that and who knows if they're actually right, but I believe
so far everyone generally complies with their interpretation.
> And would we really want to live in a world where they did? Do you
> really want to need permission to use a product in a manner the author
> didn't originally intend?
Proprietary licenses already say that I can't do that, and it's the free
licenses that tell me I can do whatever I want as long as I release the
sources. Sounds reasonable to me.
But again, I'm speaking mostly out of common sense and opinion here.
Neither one of us is going to go around citing cases and laws as that
would be a waste of bandwidth.
>
> Why not just write API wrappers? If somebody exposes an API called
> do_this() using EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL just write a module that is licensed
> GPL, exposes an API called do_this_nonGPL() using EXPORT_SYMBOL, and
> have do_this_nonGPL() just pass through a call to do_this().
>From what I gather online, this is actually what Nvidia does (or did).
They have an LGPL wrapper in their module, which interfaces with the
kernel, and then talks to their proprietary blob. This [1] stackoverflow
answer has a nice picture:
/.-\
| Kernel |
| |
| /\ |
| | Module | | /---\
| | (LGPL) <> proprietary code |
| \/ | \---/
\--/
[1]: http://stackoverflow.com/a/2721696
So they already go out of their way to comply with the terms of the kernel
license. But they also need to deal with the breakage on each update.
> All they have to do is have the human-readable license say non-GPL,
> and have it report GPL to the kernel, and not ship the source. The
> only recourse anybody has is to sue them, and it is doubtful that a
> court is going to force them to comply, as they clearly indicated
> their intent to not release the code as GPL.
On the other hand they would also be clearly indicating to others that
their code is GPL (if they did in fact add MODULE_LICENSE("GPL")). I may
be wrong here, but if that is not in the least bit ambiguous then shoot me.
> Also, you stated that the check is implemented in the build system. I
> don't know if that is true, but if it is, then the module can simply
> be built using a patched build system. I suspect the check is really
> in the module loader, which the module builder would not have control
> over.
Some reasearch tells me that this checking is implemented in both the build
system (consider it a warning) and in the module loader.
To me it seems like it is not hard to bypass, but it would be *atleast*
indecent.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: !!!!
On Wednesday 19 Aug 2015 21:22:02 Jeremi Piotrowski wrote: > On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, Alan McKinnon wrote: > > On 19/08/2015 21:58, Alec Ten Harmsel wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 08:55:16PM +0100, Mick wrote: > > >> On Wednesday 19 Aug 2015 10:28:48 Jeremi Piotrowski wrote: > > >>> Smart live rebuild only deals with live ebuilds. How would it help in > > >>> this case? > > >> > > >> Anyone cares to explain what is a "live ebuild"? > > >> > > >> Then I may be able to understand what @smart-live-rebuild may be > > >> useful for. > > >> > > >> :-/ > > > > > > A "live ebuild" is an ebuild that pulls the code to build straight from > > > whatever version control the developers are using, so you always have > > > the latest and greatest. > > > > > > Alec > > > > they usually have version number - > > portage has no way of knowing if the repository the package comes from > has been updated without fetching the sources and this is done during the > merge process. So portage has no knowledge of the state of live-ebuild > packages prior to starting a merge - it doesn't know if they have been > updated upstream, so it does nothing to them during normal updates. > > To update them you can use the set @live-rebuild. But this causes live > packages to be unconditionally rebuilt even if they haven't changed. > > Smart-live-rebuild deals with this by updating the repositories and then > only re-emerging packages that have been changed. Thank you all, I learned something new today. :-) I would usually only update - packages when I want to get a later version and with some trepidation because the latest isn't always the greatest. So, it has always been a manual exercise for me. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 08/19/2015 05:28 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Fernando Rodriguez >> wrote: >>> >>> The illegal part is not loading it but distributing the blob that depends on >>> the GPL exports. >> >> What makes it illegal? Quote the text of the relevant statute or >> court case. > > Copyright law makes everything illegal. Downloading the source and > reading it is illegal. Why wouldn't it be illegal? The copyright holders > have made it clear that you have no license to do so. > If I distribute a binary kernel module, I'm not copying anything that I didn't write. I'm the copyright holder of the binary kernel module. The argument they're making is that it is a derivative work, and I see no basis for that in the statue. That is why I want you to actually look up the letter of the law, because if the specific action being done isn't in the letter of the law, then those claiming copyright have an uphill battle ahead of them. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On 08/19/2015 05:28 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Fernando Rodriguez > wrote: >> >> The illegal part is not loading it but distributing the blob that depends on >> the GPL exports. > > What makes it illegal? Quote the text of the relevant statute or > court case. Copyright law makes everything illegal. Downloading the source and reading it is illegal. Why wouldn't it be illegal? The copyright holders have made it clear that you have no license to do so.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Fernando Rodriguez wrote: > > The illegal part is not loading it but distributing the blob that depends on > the GPL exports. What makes it illegal? Quote the text of the relevant statute or court case. That is the issue here. People argue that linking creates a derivative work, and I think that at best it only creates a derivative work after the image ends up in RAM. The blob itself doesn't contain any kernel code, unless you count a bunch of symbol names. And that is API copyrighting, which is a horrible idea (though one the US seems to be entertaining now all the same; Murcia!). -- Rich
[gentoo-user] Re: !!!!
On 2015-08-19, Alec Ten Harmsel wrote: > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 08:55:16PM +0100, Mick wrote: > >> Anyone cares to explain what is a "live ebuild"? > A "live ebuild" is an ebuild that pulls the code to build straight > from whatever version control the developers are using, so you always > have the latest and greatest. Well, always the latest anyway. :) One thing to remember with such an ebuild is that you can do two identical "emerge" commands a few seconds apart using the exact same ebuild file and end up with two different versions of whatever you're building. That can make troubleshooting things like USE flags rather, ah, entertaining. Some "live" ebuilds try to ameliorate this problem by grabbing a daily or weekly snapshot instead of the "head". Another thing to remember is that portage doesn't keep track of what version was fetched, so once you've installed a "live" ebuild, it won't ever get updated no matter how many subsequent changes have been commited to the version control system. -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards at gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: !!!!
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 19/08/2015 21:58, Alec Ten Harmsel wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 08:55:16PM +0100, Mick wrote: > >> On Wednesday 19 Aug 2015 10:28:48 Jeremi Piotrowski wrote: > >>> Smart live rebuild only deals with live ebuilds. How would it help in this > >>> case? > >> > >> Anyone cares to explain what is a "live ebuild"? > >> > >> Then I may be able to understand what @smart-live-rebuild may be useful > >> for. > >> :-/ > >> > >> -- > >> Regards, > >> Mick > > > > A "live ebuild" is an ebuild that pulls the code to build straight from > > whatever version control the developers are using, so you always have > > the latest and greatest. > > > > Alec > > > > > they usually have version number - > portage has no way of knowing if the repository the package comes from has been updated without fetching the sources and this is done during the merge process. So portage has no knowledge of the state of live-ebuild packages prior to starting a merge - it doesn't know if they have been updated upstream, so it does nothing to them during normal updates. To update them you can use the set @live-rebuild. But this causes live packages to be unconditionally rebuilt even if they haven't changed. Smart-live-rebuild deals with this by updating the repositories and then only re-emerging packages that have been changed.
Re: [gentoo-user] how to get a couple of -9999 packages to behave
Jeremi Piotrowski wrote: > On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote: > > > So do I file a bug on bgo, or is there some other way I should contact > > the gnome overlay maintainers/? > > > > I think the easiest way would be to report throught the #gentoo-desktop > IRC channel. They might tell you to go to the bugzilla. OK, thanks. -- Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: How do you spend it? John Covici cov...@ccs.covici.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: !!!!
On 19/08/2015 21:58, Alec Ten Harmsel wrote: > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 08:55:16PM +0100, Mick wrote: >> On Wednesday 19 Aug 2015 10:28:48 Jeremi Piotrowski wrote: >>> Smart live rebuild only deals with live ebuilds. How would it help in this >>> case? >> >> Anyone cares to explain what is a "live ebuild"? >> >> Then I may be able to understand what @smart-live-rebuild may be useful for. >> >> :-/ >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Mick > > A "live ebuild" is an ebuild that pulls the code to build straight from > whatever version control the developers are using, so you always have > the latest and greatest. > > Alec > they usually have version number - -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: !!!!
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 08:55:16PM +0100, Mick wrote: > On Wednesday 19 Aug 2015 10:28:48 Jeremi Piotrowski wrote: > > Smart live rebuild only deals with live ebuilds. How would it help in this > > case? > > Anyone cares to explain what is a "live ebuild"? > > Then I may be able to understand what @smart-live-rebuild may be useful for. > :-/ > > -- > Regards, > Mick A "live ebuild" is an ebuild that pulls the code to build straight from whatever version control the developers are using, so you always have the latest and greatest. Alec
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: !!!!
On Wednesday 19 Aug 2015 10:28:48 Jeremi Piotrowski wrote: > On Tue, 18 Aug 2015, John Campbell wrote: > > On 08/18/2015 06:38 PM, walt wrote: > > > On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 18:03:31 -0700 > > > > > > John Campbell wrote: > > > > I haven't really been following this closely but I haven't seen any > > > > suggestion to use "emerge -1 --quiet=y smart-live-rebuild" to remove > > > > the offending curses output. Hopefully emerge doesn't check/use > > > > curses unless it's producing actual output. > > From the initial post it seems that the binary that has a problem is > bash/sh. They are both linked against tinfo/ncurses. And since portage > runs using bash... you see where I'm going with this. You could maybe use > a different shell (although I can't imagine a shell not using the terminal > capabilities ;) ), but still wouldn't be able to use portage. > > > Maybe "emerge --quiet=y -a @smart-live-rebuild" > > Smart live rebuild only deals with live ebuilds. How would it help in this > case? Anyone cares to explain what is a "live ebuild"? Then I may be able to understand what @smart-live-rebuild may be useful for. :-/ -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 7:00:15 AM Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > On 08/18/2015 08:39 PM, Dale wrote: > >> > >> Here's a clue. Why doesn't the kernel devs let users decide what > >> drivers they are comfy with using? If they don't like the drivers, then > >> make it so that users have to install their own just like we have for > >> ages but don't disable them or make them not load and work. > > > > A lot of people build and distribute kernels. The EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL > > thing is there to prevent those people from linking closed-source > > modules against certain parts of the kernel, because the result would > > not be distributable under the GPL. The legal issue is there regardless: > > you can't link closed-source stuff to GPL code and then distribute the > > result. > > > > I don't really buy into that argument here. > > What makes nvidia.ko a derivative-work of the kernel? It doesn't > contain any code not written by them. > > I can buy into the argument that once it is loaded into memory and > linked against the kernel that the image in RAM becomes a derivative > work, but nobody is making copies of that image or redistributing it. > > Take a 1950s science-fiction movie. If you add voice-over and call it > Mystery Science Theater 3000 that is a derivative work, because it > incorporates parts of the original work. If you put the voice-over on > separate media and call it Rifftrax it isn't a derivative work, > because it doesn't incorporate any elements of the original. That > remains true even if it is dynamically linked to the original by > adding an instruction to unpause the recording when the movie title > appears. > > The whole GPL-prevents-linking argument seems rather tenuous to me, > and as far as I'm aware it has never been upheld by a court. It is of > course accepted as gospel in FOSS circles, but as far as I can tell it > is based on arguments that are similar to those employed by the likes > of Oracle and SCO wanting to copyright enums and APIs. > > > If somebody distributes a modified kernel I buy that they have to > publish the source code. If somebody says "take your kernel image and > insert this blob of bytes at address foo" I don't see how making or > obeying that statement is illegal. Well, a dynamic library or kernel > module is just a standardized way of doing just that. The illegal part is not loading it but distributing the blob that depends on the GPL exports. Vendors can modify their blobs not to depend on GPL symbols and distribute them. Unfortunately the result would be that proprietary driver vendors will have to do more reinventing of the wheel introducing bugs in the process. That said, I find it hypocritical that the FSF does not condemn this practice since they campaign against DRM and that's exactly what this is. > The patch I wrote is arguably a derivative work of the kernel > (reproduced here for convenience): > > diff --git a/include/linux/export.h b/include/linux/export.h > index 96e45ea..b1bc4c3 100644 > --- a/include/linux/export.h > +++ b/include/linux/export.h > @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ extern struct module __this_module; > __EXPORT_SYMBOL(sym, "") > > #define EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(sym) \ > - __EXPORT_SYMBOL(sym, "_gpl") > + __EXPORT_SYMBOL(sym, "") > > #define EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL_FUTURE(sym) \ > __EXPORT_SYMBOL(sym, "_gpl_future") > > Now, instead of writing that suppose I instead had written this: "Edit > the file include/linux/export.h, go to line 72 and remote the text > enclosed in quotation marks, leaving an empty string." Would that > statement be a derivative work in any way of the kernel? I don't think it matters if it is because 1) the GPL allows you to distribute derived works in source form, and 2) source code is protected by free speech as long as you didn't break the law in writing it (like reverse engineering a binary blob when it's license forbids it). > That would > be like arguing that I own the rights to anything anybody says which > happens to mention my name. > > -- Fernando Rodriguez
Re: [gentoo-user] PHP slots
On 19/08/2015 19:05, Ajai Khattri wrote: > > Are packages of major versions of PHP all slotted now? Yes > In trying to upgrade from 5.3 to 5.6 I get the following query: > > # emerge -uDatvk dev-lang/php > > * IMPORTANT: 8 news items need reading for repository 'gentoo'. > * Use eselect news read to view new items. Um, you should probably read those > > > These are the packages that would be merged, in reverse order: > > Calculating dependencies... done! > > Total: 0 packages, Size of downloads: 0 KiB > > !!! The following installed packages are masked: > - dev-lang/php-5.3.28-r3::gentoo (masked by: package.mask) > /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask: > # Brian Evans (22 Mar 2015) > # PHP 5.3.x is vulnerable to several security bugs and has > # reached EOL status. (Bugs #533998, #537586, #537590, #538822, #541098) > # Masked pending resolution to bug #538756 > > For more information, see the MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge > man page or refer to the Gentoo Handbook. > > > > * dev-lang/php:5.3 > * dev-lang/php:5.4 > * dev-lang/php:5.5 > > Would you like to add these packages to your world favorites? [Yes/No] > > > I always thought the idea of adding specific slots to my world file a > bad idea ? No, adding random crap to world is a bad idea. You add to world things YOU want to have, things that are not deps. If you want package X and that package needs php version Y, then php-Y will be installed. If you know for sure you need say php-5.4 for some purpose, then add it to world, otherwise depclean will start removing it. If you just want the latest php, then simply emerge php One of the purposes of slots is to give YOU, the user, finer control over packages that you may well need several versions of (interpreters, libs, kernel sources, and more). To control that, you need to add them to world. What you should not do is try add specific versions of packages to world. That can go horribly wrong. SLOTs for apps you will emerge are generally OK -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] how to get a couple of -9999 packages to behave
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote: > So do I file a bug on bgo, or is there some other way I should contact > the gnome overlay maintainers/? > I think the easiest way would be to report throught the #gentoo-desktop IRC channel. They might tell you to go to the bugzilla.
Re: [gentoo-user] how to get a couple of -9999 packages to behave
Jeremi Piotrowski wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote:
> > Well, I would be willing to do that, but the only difference between the
> > .999 ones and the regular ones is that the . ones inherit virtualx
> > and they have the following
> > inherit eutils gnome2 multilib-minimal virtualx
> > if [[ ${PV} = ]]; then
> > inherit gnome2-live
> > fi
> >
> > So, can you give me any guidance as to why multilib is not being
> > honored?
>
> I tried emerging them like you and I found the cause. If you read
> multlilib-minimal.eclass you will find the following:
>
> # multilib-minimal should _always_ go last in inherit order!
>
> Apply the following patch and everything builds fine as multilib. And
> please report this problem along with the solution to the gnome-overlay
> maintainers.
>
> ---
> diff --git a/app-accessibility/at-spi2-atk/at-spi2-atk-.ebuild
> b/app-accessibility/at-spi2-atk/at-spi2-atk-.ebuild
> index fc52ded..3ab77f8 100644
> --- a/app-accessibility/at-spi2-atk/at-spi2-atk-.ebuild
> +++ b/app-accessibility/at-spi2-atk/at-spi2-atk-.ebuild
> @@ -6,10 +6,11 @@ EAPI="5"
> GCONF_DEBUG="no"
> GNOME2_LA_PUNT="yes"
>
> -inherit eutils gnome2 multilib-minimal virtualx
> +inherit eutils gnome2 virtualx
> if [[ ${PV} = ]]; then
> inherit gnome2-live
> fi
> +inherit multilib-minimal
>
> DESCRIPTION="Gtk module for bridging AT-SPI to Atk"
> HOMEPAGE="http://live.gnome.org/Accessibility";
> diff --git a/app-accessibility/at-spi2-core/at-spi2-core-.ebuild
> b/app-accessibility/at-spi2-core/at-spi2-core-.ebuild
> index 3d13936..4170a8e 100644
> --- a/app-accessibility/at-spi2-core/at-spi2-core-.ebuild
> +++ b/app-accessibility/at-spi2-core/at-spi2-core-.ebuild
> @@ -6,10 +6,11 @@ EAPI="5"
> GCONF_DEBUG="no"
> GNOME2_LA_PUNT="yes"
>
> -inherit eutils gnome2 multilib-minimal
> +inherit eutils gnome2
> if [[ ${PV} = ]]; then
> inherit gnome2-live
> fi
> +inherit multilib-minimal
>
> DESCRIPTION="D-Bus accessibility specifications and registration daemon"
> HOMEPAGE="http://live.gnome.org/Accessibility";
Thanks so much -- this is the kind of knowledge I don't have -- up to
now -- so this is why this mailing list is so great. So do I file a
bug on bgo, or is there some other way I should contact the gnome
overlay maintainers/?
Thanks again.
--
Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is:
How do
you spend it?
John Covici
cov...@ccs.covici.com
Re: [gentoo-user] how to get a couple of -9999 packages to behave
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote:
> Well, I would be willing to do that, but the only difference between the
> .999 ones and the regular ones is that the . ones inherit virtualx
> and they have the following
> inherit eutils gnome2 multilib-minimal virtualx
> if [[ ${PV} = ]]; then
> inherit gnome2-live
> fi
>
> So, can you give me any guidance as to why multilib is not being
> honored?
I tried emerging them like you and I found the cause. If you read
multlilib-minimal.eclass you will find the following:
# multilib-minimal should _always_ go last in inherit order!
Apply the following patch and everything builds fine as multilib. And
please report this problem along with the solution to the gnome-overlay
maintainers.
---
diff --git a/app-accessibility/at-spi2-atk/at-spi2-atk-.ebuild
b/app-accessibility/at-spi2-atk/at-spi2-atk-.ebuild
index fc52ded..3ab77f8 100644
--- a/app-accessibility/at-spi2-atk/at-spi2-atk-.ebuild
+++ b/app-accessibility/at-spi2-atk/at-spi2-atk-.ebuild
@@ -6,10 +6,11 @@ EAPI="5"
GCONF_DEBUG="no"
GNOME2_LA_PUNT="yes"
-inherit eutils gnome2 multilib-minimal virtualx
+inherit eutils gnome2 virtualx
if [[ ${PV} = ]]; then
inherit gnome2-live
fi
+inherit multilib-minimal
DESCRIPTION="Gtk module for bridging AT-SPI to Atk"
HOMEPAGE="http://live.gnome.org/Accessibility";
diff --git a/app-accessibility/at-spi2-core/at-spi2-core-.ebuild
b/app-accessibility/at-spi2-core/at-spi2-core-.ebuild
index 3d13936..4170a8e 100644
--- a/app-accessibility/at-spi2-core/at-spi2-core-.ebuild
+++ b/app-accessibility/at-spi2-core/at-spi2-core-.ebuild
@@ -6,10 +6,11 @@ EAPI="5"
GCONF_DEBUG="no"
GNOME2_LA_PUNT="yes"
-inherit eutils gnome2 multilib-minimal
+inherit eutils gnome2
if [[ ${PV} = ]]; then
inherit gnome2-live
fi
+inherit multilib-minimal
DESCRIPTION="D-Bus accessibility specifications and registration daemon"
HOMEPAGE="http://live.gnome.org/Accessibility";
[gentoo-user] PHP slots
Are packages of major versions of PHP all slotted now? In trying to upgrade from 5.3 to 5.6 I get the following query: # emerge -uDatvk dev-lang/php * IMPORTANT: 8 news items need reading for repository 'gentoo'. * Use eselect news read to view new items. These are the packages that would be merged, in reverse order: Calculating dependencies... done! Total: 0 packages, Size of downloads: 0 KiB !!! The following installed packages are masked: - dev-lang/php-5.3.28-r3::gentoo (masked by: package.mask) /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask: # Brian Evans (22 Mar 2015) # PHP 5.3.x is vulnerable to several security bugs and has # reached EOL status. (Bugs #533998, #537586, #537590, #538822, #541098) # Masked pending resolution to bug #538756 For more information, see the MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge man page or refer to the Gentoo Handbook. * dev-lang/php:5.3 * dev-lang/php:5.4 * dev-lang/php:5.5 Would you like to add these packages to your world favorites? [Yes/No] I always thought the idea of adding specific slots to my world file a bad idea ? - A
Re: [gentoo-user] how to get a couple of -9999 packages to behave
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:09:07AM -0400, cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote:
> Jc García wrote:
>
> > 2015-08-18 10:38 GMT-06:00 :
> > > So, how do I get the -
> > > versions of the ebuilds to give me all the correct files like the 2.16.x
> > > versions do? I know the - are from git, but it should do what
> > > gentoo wants.
> > This isn't realistic, you can't ask the devs to check every commit
> > upstream makes, exactly when it makes it, so they could update the
> > ebuild, if a ebuild isn't working try to fix it, Obviously
> > somthing changed with the dependecies, maybe versions, considering
> > gnome 3.18 is around the corner. Why do you think none of the
> > ebuilds are keyworded? because they're not officially maintained for
> > any arch. My advice is wait if you don't want to mess with the
> > ebuilds, other wise, open up an editor and start making things work
> > for you, a good start would be to check all the autotools files for
> > changes in dependencies.
>
> Well, I would be willing to do that, but the only difference between the
> .999 ones and the regular ones is that the . ones inherit virtualx
> and they have the following
> inherit eutils gnome2 multilib-minimal virtualx
> if [[ ${PV} = ]]; then
> inherit gnome2-live
> fi
>
> So, can you give me any guidance as to why multilib is not being
> honored?
>
The ebuild needs to contain all the steps required to build the
software. The build process for these particular pieces of software may
have changed enough that the - ebuild does not contain all the steps
anymore.
As Jc Garcia said earlier:
> > Obviously somthing changed with the dependecies, maybe versions,
> > considering gnome 3.18 is around the corner.
Alec
[gentoo-user] Re: !!!!
On 2015-08-19, John Campbell wrote: > How about "emerge --color=n --nospinner -p @smart-live-rebuild" Color > and spinners are the only things in portage that should be using curses. IMO, emerge should not be doing stuff like that for two reasons: 1) It's broken: the assumptions made about what colors are actually legible is wrong if you use terminals with white backgrounds. I have to turn off colors just to make the default output legible. 2) It introduces dependencies like this which should be minimized in something as central to the system as emerge. -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! I haven't been married at in over six years, but we gmail.comhad sexual counseling every day from Oral Roberts!!
Re: [gentoo-user] how to get a couple of -9999 packages to behave
Jc García wrote:
> 2015-08-18 10:38 GMT-06:00 :
> > So, how do I get the -
> > versions of the ebuilds to give me all the correct files like the 2.16.x
> > versions do? I know the - are from git, but it should do what
> > gentoo wants.
> This isn't realistic, you can't ask the devs to check every commit
> upstream makes, exactly when it makes it, so they could update the
> ebuild, if a ebuild isn't working try to fix it, Obviously
> somthing changed with the dependecies, maybe versions, considering
> gnome 3.18 is around the corner. Why do you think none of the
> ebuilds are keyworded? because they're not officially maintained for
> any arch. My advice is wait if you don't want to mess with the
> ebuilds, other wise, open up an editor and start making things work
> for you, a good start would be to check all the autotools files for
> changes in dependencies.
Well, I would be willing to do that, but the only difference between the
.999 ones and the regular ones is that the . ones inherit virtualx
and they have the following
inherit eutils gnome2 multilib-minimal virtualx
if [[ ${PV} = ]]; then
inherit gnome2-live
fi
So, can you give me any guidance as to why multilib is not being
honored?
--
Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is:
How do
you spend it?
John Covici
cov...@ccs.covici.com
Re: [gentoo-user] UEFI booting [solved]
On 08/17/2015 11:37 PM, Jeremi Piotrowski wrote: On Mon, 17 Aug 2015, Rod wrote: Hi list, Hi I'm trying to figure out how to make my boot partition to boot from UEFI, I have grub2 installed, but I keep getting a error when I ask it to install the boot information. First things first, are you installing gentoo from an UEFI booted installation media? From what I know the gentoo minimal install cd does not allow for this, and I will assume you are using that. If you're using some other installation method, check whether the directory /sys/firmware/efi/efivars has any content, try to mount efivarfs following the instructions in this link: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Efibootmgr#Configuration and then check again. # efibootmgr efibootmgr: EFI variables are not supported on this system. # grub2-install --target=x86_64-efi /dev/sdc Installing for x86_64-efi platform. efibootmgr: EFI variables are not supported on this system. efibootmgr: EFI variables are not supported on this system. Installation finished. No error reported. In your case it seems that the system is not in an UEFI-booted state. But we can work around this by using a nice part of the UEFI specification, details below. mount /dev/sdc1 201633156 201478 1% /boot/efi I have the /boot/efi part mounted ok.. Before we go further make sure that the partition is a valid EFI boot partition: code EF00 (gdisk), partition flags boot/esp (for parted). How can I get this UEFI be become bootable without media to make it boot in to that mode to begin with ? It's actually much easier than it may seem, and it's outlined here: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GRUB2#Alternative:_using_the_default_UEFI_firmware_location Basically, for all sorts of removable media there must be a way to tell UEFI what to boot without having to hardcode the entries into NVRAM (like efibootmgr does). Therefore UEFI firmware is supposed to check for the first ESP partition on a drive and boot \EFI\boot\bootx64.efi from it. This also works for harddrives, and since you can access a FAT partition even when booted in bios mode you just put grub there. Now this works perfectly well for a linux kernel with efi stub and cmdline built-in, but grub may have trouble finding it's configuration files, I do not know. So I suggest you try it. Find grubx64.efi in /boot/efi and copy it to /boot/efi/EFI/BOOT/BOOTX64.EFI. Voila, should boot just fine. On my first UEFI install I did not know about this, efibootmgr did not work, but the handbook says to place the kernel at /EFI/boot/bootx64.efi and it just magically worked. Generally you will find that provided the UEFI implementation of your vendor is not complete shit (lots of them exist) UEFI makes it generally easier to handle booting. One partition and the EFI variables and you can boot anything, no more hidden sectors. Ok, thnks for your help, all was checked out as you said, the boot partition was correct, boot, esp which was a good thing. Just found a slight problem, my .efi program that the system was trying to boot was /boot/efi/EFI/gentoo/grubx64.efi copying the .efi to /boot/efi/EFI/BOOT changed nothing, I filed to notice that the name was incorrect, as installing the UEFI with the bootloader (without the efivar loaded) resulted in a file named "grubx86.efi" which doesn't work when copied in to the BOOT directory :( Renaming this file-> mv grubx86.efi bootx86.efi System now happily boots in UEFI mode, I guess I didn't read "Find grubx64.efi in /boot/efi and copy it to /boot/efi/EFI/BOOT/BOOTX64.EFI" correctly :P during this time, the original sda drive I was using failed (SMART was reporting that I should replace it soon) and I guess it was slightly too soon, but I did have the chance to rsync the filesystem across :P Thanks heaps for your help :) -- --- Regards, Rod Smart 0417 513 286
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Jeremi Piotrowski wrote: > On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> It sounds like you not only expect them to comply with the license, >> but also with the kernel devs personal interpretation of copyright >> law. > > What is a license but a statement of the intent of the authors as to what > can and can't be done with their work? Well, it does have some legal force > too... The only reason that licenses matter at all is that they have legal force. They only matter to the degree that they do. If I went around selling licenses to drive cars, anybody who bought one would be a fool. I have no rights to sell such licenses, and they have no legal requirements to buy one from me. Likewise, the fact that the kernel authors WANT to control linking to their code means absolutely nothing. They have no legal right to do so, any more than a shovel manufacturer has the right to dictate what kinds of holes I dig. > > If you'd try to take away their right to decide about that next thing > they'd do is modify the license to be even larger and explicitly cover all > corner cases. And that would accomplish nothing, since companies would just ignore any text which doesn't have a basis in law. > > That has always been the issue but I'll allow myself to quote an email > on the matter: > From: Linus Torvalds The problem is that Linus's words mean nothing unless they're based in law. You don't need to quote Linus. You need to quote laws, court decisions, or treaties. And none of them say a word about linking creating a derived work. And would we really want to live in a world where they did? Do you really want to need permission to use a product in a manner the author didn't originally intend? > > Apparently the Linux foundation considers some pieces to be *clearly* > GPL-only and these are marked as such. And I don't see a way for vendors > around this other than to avoid the usage of such symbols Why not just write API wrappers? If somebody exposes an API called do_this() using EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL just write a module that is licensed GPL, exposes an API called do_this_nonGPL() using EXPORT_SYMBOL, and have do_this_nonGPL() just pass through a call to do_this(). This is a trivial measure to circumvent, as far as a I can tell. It is just a PITA to deal with. What is next, randomizing all the function/variable names on each new kernel release so that it is impossible to maintain any kernel code outside of the tree? Then we'll have smart configure scripts for external modules that try to determine the right name to use and wrapper header files. > > Who wants to go court when the current scheme is effective. The whole > issue of "derivative work" is more applicable to binary kernel modules > anyway. In this case we have the source code, and the kernel module build > system will not allow a module that claims a certain license to use > certain symbols. They (vendors) can: > > a) change their license to say "GPL" but then people would be allowed to > demand full source code from them including binary blobs. All they have to do is have the human-readable license say non-GPL, and have it report GPL to the kernel, and not ship the source. The only recourse anybody has is to sue them, and it is doubtful that a court is going to force them to comply, as they clearly indicated their intent to not release the code as GPL. You might be able to get away with redistributing the blob since the situation is a bit ambiguous, but I doubt the driver manufacturers care that much if you redistribute their blobs. I remember a fiasco a few years ago when a vendor exported the license as something like "GPL\0 does not apply." > > b) apply the patch you posted - not really practical, definitely > wouldn't be popular but I don't really see how that would be illegal. > Full GPL would apply to the kernel anyway. > > c) avoid the usage of such symbols. > > and they will do c) because they really don't have a choice. > As I pointed out they can just write a wrapper that exports GPL and re-exports all the symbols. Also, you stated that the check is implemented in the build system. I don't know if that is true, but if it is, then the module can simply be built using a patched build system. I suspect the check is really in the module loader, which the module builder would not have control over. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-user] how to get a couple of -9999 packages to behave
2015-08-18 10:38 GMT-06:00 : > So, how do I get the - > versions of the ebuilds to give me all the correct files like the 2.16.x > versions do? I know the - are from git, but it should do what > gentoo wants. This isn't realistic, you can't ask the devs to check every commit upstream makes, exactly when it makes it, so they could update the ebuild, if a ebuild isn't working try to fix it, Obviously somthing changed with the dependecies, maybe versions, considering gnome 3.18 is around the corner. Why do you think none of the ebuilds are keyworded? because they're not officially maintained for any arch. My advice is wait if you don't want to mess with the ebuilds, other wise, open up an editor and start making things work for you, a good start would be to check all the autotools files for changes in dependencies.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, Rich Freeman wrote:
> It sounds like you not only expect them to comply with the license,
> but also with the kernel devs personal interpretation of copyright
> law.
What is a license but a statement of the intent of the authors as to what
can and can't be done with their work? Well, it does have some legal force
too...
If you'd try to take away their right to decide about that next thing
they'd do is modify the license to be even larger and explicitly cover all
corner cases. But the world of licenses is complex enough so the next best
thing is saying "this is GPLv2 and we consider this to be derived work".
You can try to bypass that but will hit walls such as EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.
And intent does matter in copyright law, if explicitly stated as in this
case.
> I think the real issue here is what constitutes a "derived work." I
> suspect the GPU legal teams have given these practices a thumbs-up,
> and there is probably a reason that the Linux foundation hasn't tried
> to sue them over it.
That has always been the issue but I'll allow myself to quote an email
on the matter:
---
Newsgroups: fa.linux.kernel
From: Linus Torvalds
Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?
Original-Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 15:59:35 GMT
Message-ID:
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Jason Kingsland wrote:
> > - anything that has knowledge of and plays with fundamental internal
> >Linux behaviour is clearly a derived work. If you need to muck
> >around
> >with core code, you're derived, no question about it.
>
>
> If that is the case, why the introduction of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL and
> MODULE_LICENSE()?
It is really just documentation.
This is exactly so that it is more clear which cases are black-and-white,
and where people shouldn't even have to think about it for a single
second. It still doesn't make the gray area go away, but it limits it a
bit ("if you need this export, you're clearly doing something that
requires the GPL").
Note: since the kernel itself is under the GPL, clearly anybody can modify
the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() line, and remove the _GPL part. That wouldn't be
against the license per se. But it doesn't make a module that needs that
symbol any less needful of the GPL - exactly because the thing is just a
big cluehint rather than anything else.
Linus
---
Apparently the Linux foundation considers some pieces to be *clearly*
GPL-only and these are marked as such. And I don't see a way for vendors
around this other than to avoid the usage of such symbols - this is what
they have done so far and this is what they will continue doing. If they
want their drivers to be useful to anyone using linux that is.
> The reason neither party talks about it openly
> is probably because they can't be 100% sure which way a court will go
> so it isn't in anybody's interest to stir things up.
Who wants to go court when the current scheme is effective. The whole
issue of "derivative work" is more applicable to binary kernel modules
anyway. In this case we have the source code, and the kernel module build
system will not allow a module that claims a certain license to use
certain symbols. They (vendors) can:
a) change their license to say "GPL" but then people would be allowed to
demand full source code from them including binary blobs.
b) apply the patch you posted - not really practical, definitely
wouldn't be popular but I don't really see how that would be illegal.
Full GPL would apply to the kernel anyway.
c) avoid the usage of such symbols.
and they will do c) because they really don't have a choice.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 08/18/2015 09:54 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> I think the kernel devs would be hard-pressed to mount some kind of >> GPL infringement lawsuit. In general US courts have tended to block >> attempts to use copyright/trademark/patents/etc simply to prevent >> interoperability, and that is basically what this is. > > The entire point of the GPL is to "prevent interoperability" with people > who want to steal your work and take away its users' freedoms. That might be their purpose, but it is based on copyright law, which does not share that purpose. The GPL can't take away anybody's rights. A license GIVES you rights. It is copyright law which restricts you, and the GPL eases those restrictions. The law says that hanging out on somebody else's property without permission is trespassing. However, my neighbor can mow my lawn for me if I give them permission. That doesn't mean that they need permission from me to mow their own lawn, because the whole basis for needing permission was that they would be violating a law which no longer applies. The law says you can't make copies of the kernel source or binaries without permission. The GPL says that you can make copies under some conditions. The law doesn't say that you can't make something inter-operable with a copyrighted work. The GPL can't impose such a restriction any more than I can tell my neighbor on which days he is allowed to mow his own lawn. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Jeremi Piotrowski wrote: > Companies have frequently been ... > applying their own interpretation of what constitutes derived work. >... > I have nothing against proprietary/closed source kernel modules as long as > they comply with the terms of the licenses of open source software that > they are using. They expect the same from you... > It sounds like you not only expect them to comply with the license, but also with the kernel devs personal interpretation of copyright law. (I realize I truncated the first sentence I quoted, but you did use the word "or" so the second half has to be able to stand on its own. If you hadn't said it I'd have just said it for you.) I think the real issue here is what constitutes a "derived work." I suspect the GPU legal teams have given these practices a thumbs-up, and there is probably a reason that the Linux foundation hasn't tried to sue them over it. The reason neither party talks about it openly is probably because they can't be 100% sure which way a court will go so it isn't in anybody's interest to stir things up. However, that won't stop the Linux devs from trying to get companies to not write proprietary drivers, and it apparently isn't stopping driver devs from releasing proprietary drivers. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 08/18/2015 08:39 PM, Dale wrote: >> >> Here's a clue. Why doesn't the kernel devs let users decide what >> drivers they are comfy with using? If they don't like the drivers, then >> make it so that users have to install their own just like we have for >> ages but don't disable them or make them not load and work. > > A lot of people build and distribute kernels. The EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL > thing is there to prevent those people from linking closed-source > modules against certain parts of the kernel, because the result would > not be distributable under the GPL. The legal issue is there regardless: > you can't link closed-source stuff to GPL code and then distribute the > result. > I don't really buy into that argument here. What makes nvidia.ko a derivative-work of the kernel? It doesn't contain any code not written by them. I can buy into the argument that once it is loaded into memory and linked against the kernel that the image in RAM becomes a derivative work, but nobody is making copies of that image or redistributing it. Take a 1950s science-fiction movie. If you add voice-over and call it Mystery Science Theater 3000 that is a derivative work, because it incorporates parts of the original work. If you put the voice-over on separate media and call it Rifftrax it isn't a derivative work, because it doesn't incorporate any elements of the original. That remains true even if it is dynamically linked to the original by adding an instruction to unpause the recording when the movie title appears. The whole GPL-prevents-linking argument seems rather tenuous to me, and as far as I'm aware it has never been upheld by a court. It is of course accepted as gospel in FOSS circles, but as far as I can tell it is based on arguments that are similar to those employed by the likes of Oracle and SCO wanting to copyright enums and APIs. If somebody distributes a modified kernel I buy that they have to publish the source code. If somebody says "take your kernel image and insert this blob of bytes at address foo" I don't see how making or obeying that statement is illegal. Well, a dynamic library or kernel module is just a standardized way of doing just that. The patch I wrote is arguably a derivative work of the kernel (reproduced here for convenience): diff --git a/include/linux/export.h b/include/linux/export.h index 96e45ea..b1bc4c3 100644 --- a/include/linux/export.h +++ b/include/linux/export.h @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ extern struct module __this_module; __EXPORT_SYMBOL(sym, "") #define EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(sym) \ - __EXPORT_SYMBOL(sym, "_gpl") + __EXPORT_SYMBOL(sym, "") #define EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL_FUTURE(sym) \ __EXPORT_SYMBOL(sym, "_gpl_future") Now, instead of writing that suppose I instead had written this: "Edit the file include/linux/export.h, go to line 72 and remote the text enclosed in quotation marks, leaving an empty string." Would that statement be a derivative work in any way of the kernel? That would be like arguing that I own the rights to anything anybody says which happens to mention my name. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: !!!!
Maybe "emerge --quiet=y -a @smart-live-rebuild" Smart live rebuild only deals with live ebuilds. How would it help in this case? It seems I miss-remembered from the first post, looking back I see it was revdep-rebuild, not smart-live-rebuild.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: !!!!
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015, John Campbell wrote: > On 08/18/2015 06:38 PM, walt wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 18:03:31 -0700 > > John Campbell wrote: > > > > > I haven't really been following this closely but I haven't seen any > > > suggestion to use "emerge -1 --quiet=y smart-live-rebuild" to remove > > > the offending curses output. Hopefully emerge doesn't check/use > > > curses unless it's producing actual output. >From the initial post it seems that the binary that has a problem is bash/sh. They are both linked against tinfo/ncurses. And since portage runs using bash... you see where I'm going with this. You could maybe use a different shell (although I can't imagine a shell not using the terminal capabilities ;) ), but still wouldn't be able to use portage. > Maybe "emerge --quiet=y -a @smart-live-rebuild" Smart live rebuild only deals with live ebuilds. How would it help in this case?
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015, Dale wrote: > I did some searching based on the config option you gave and I'm unable > to find a way to override this myself. It doesn't seem to be a setting > I can put in make.conf or package.use etc either. If this is the case, > I may wish Nvidia would switch to open source but it sort of rubs me the > wrong way that someone else is making the decision and me having no way > to exercise my decision to use it anyway. I don't care if Nvidia > doesn't show its code as long as it works and it isn't spying on me or > blowing up my house here. The issue is more of a legal one. The kernel has *always* been under the GPLv2, so derivative work should also be under a compatible license. Companies have frequently been violating the terms of the license or applying their own interpretation of what constitutes derived work. The point is the kernel devs are *not* changing anything by modifying some symbols to be exported GPL-only. Legally they have always been such, and they are just now starting to enforce what has always been their intention. And it's their right to do so. If anyone is to blame then it's nvidia and amd. Ofcourse as a user with access to the source code you can modify it in any way you like, as long as you don't redistribute it. Patch the kernel sources, patch the module sources, contact the graphics card vendor and demand a patch. But don't blame the kernel people. I have nothing against proprietary/closed source kernel modules as long as they comply with the terms of the licenses of open source software that they are using. They expect the same from you...
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 09:57:19 AM Marc Joliet wrote: > Am Tue, 18 Aug 2015 21:54:30 -0400 > > schrieb Rich Freeman : > > I do get the frustration of the kernel developers. The GPU makers > > should be competing on their GPUs, not on their drivers. However, > > Linux isn't their main market and forcing the issue is probably just > > going to drive them to ignore it. > > I know that AMD is writing a new kernel module to be integrated into the > kernel, on top of which their proprietary driver will then operate (it is > reported that the open-source driver can/will also profit from this). Thus > it's the reality *now* that at least one GPU manufacturers is trying to > deal with this properly. > > Personally, I am under the impression that the point where GPU manufacturers > could opt to ignore Linux completely passed some time ago (I'm no expert, > but I know that the gaming market isn't the only market for GPUs). Interesting, I don't seem to have any issues. Kernel: 4.0.5 Nvidia: 352.30 -- Joost signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
Am Tue, 18 Aug 2015 21:54:30 -0400 schrieb Rich Freeman : > I do get the frustration of the kernel developers. The GPU makers > should be competing on their GPUs, not on their drivers. However, > Linux isn't their main market and forcing the issue is probably just > going to drive them to ignore it. I know that AMD is writing a new kernel module to be integrated into the kernel, on top of which their proprietary driver will then operate (it is reported that the open-source driver can/will also profit from this). Thus it's the reality *now* that at least one GPU manufacturers is trying to deal with this properly. Personally, I am under the impression that the point where GPU manufacturers could opt to ignore Linux completely passed some time ago (I'm no expert, but I know that the gaming market isn't the only market for GPUs). -- Marc Joliet -- "People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know we don't" - Bjarne Stroustrup pgpOaPpS3xmDK.pgp Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: !!!!
Am Tue, 18 Aug 2015 20:13:53 -0700 schrieb John Campbell : > And as > python's an interpreted language revdep-rebuild won't find it. Huh? If Python is the problem, I would think it's because its C implementation uses dlopen(3) instead of linking at build time (which could apply to anything). -- Marc Joliet -- "People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know we don't" - Bjarne Stroustrup pgpfF0egWTSMW.pgp Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: !!!!
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 03:14:36 AM Fernando Rodriguez wrote: > On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 8:50:30 AM J. Roeleveld wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 04:37:03 PM wraeth wrote: > > > On 19/08/15 16:31, Fernando Rodriguez wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 2:25:20 AM Fernando Rodriguez wrote: > > > >> On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 4:03:59 PM wraeth wrote: > > > >>> On 19/08/15 15:26, Fernando Rodriguez wrote: > > > PS: There's a post by wraeth on this thread, is anybody > > > having problems opening it? kmail crashes everytime I try. > > > >>> > > > >>> Does this (unsigned) message cause kmail to crash? > > > >> > > > >> No, that's it. I also noticed after sending my last message that > > > >> the Sign > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > >> Encrypt toolbar buttons are greyed out. I'll figure it out > > > >> tomorrow. > > > > > > > > The akonadictl magic fixed it. I tried it before, I think it worked > > > > now because I closed kmail first :) > > > > > > And your messages are coming through signed now, too. > > > > > > Though I don't use KDE, can you describe what Akonadi black arts fixed > > > it? May come in handy for others who get the same issue. > > > -- > > > wraeth > > > GnuPG Key: B2D9F759 > > > > My guess would be: > > # akonadictl restart > > ? > > > > I changed over to using postgresql instead of mysql for akonadi and I have > > not > > > had any issues requiring a restart of akonadi since. (Granted, only a few > > days > > > so far, but suspend-to-disk was problematic before the change) > > > > -- > > Joost > > Yes, I forgot to type the restart part. I'll have to give postgresql a shot > cause I need to restart quite often when using this account (imap with a lot > of folders). On another box I got a POP3 account and an IMAP with a few > folders and rarely need to restart. Never had this specific problem before > though. It usually just stops downloading emails. How I currently have it: 1) Postgresql running globally 2) useraccount/database for akonadi 3) configured akonadi to use the global database (eg. NOT started by akonadi) If you let akonadi start the database, it doesn't perform that well. -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: !!!!
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 8:50:30 AM J. Roeleveld wrote: > On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 04:37:03 PM wraeth wrote: > > On 19/08/15 16:31, Fernando Rodriguez wrote: > > > On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 2:25:20 AM Fernando Rodriguez wrote: > > >> On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 4:03:59 PM wraeth wrote: > > >>> On 19/08/15 15:26, Fernando Rodriguez wrote: > > PS: There's a post by wraeth on this thread, is anybody > > having problems opening it? kmail crashes everytime I try. > > >>> > > >>> Does this (unsigned) message cause kmail to crash? > > >> > > >> No, that's it. I also noticed after sending my last message that > > >> the Sign > > > > > > and > > > > > >> Encrypt toolbar buttons are greyed out. I'll figure it out > > >> tomorrow. > > > > > > The akonadictl magic fixed it. I tried it before, I think it worked > > > now because I closed kmail first :) > > > > And your messages are coming through signed now, too. > > > > Though I don't use KDE, can you describe what Akonadi black arts fixed > > it? May come in handy for others who get the same issue. > > -- > > wraeth > > GnuPG Key: B2D9F759 > > My guess would be: > # akonadictl restart > ? > > I changed over to using postgresql instead of mysql for akonadi and I have not > had any issues requiring a restart of akonadi since. (Granted, only a few days > so far, but suspend-to-disk was problematic before the change) > > -- > Joost > Yes, I forgot to type the restart part. I'll have to give postgresql a shot cause I need to restart quite often when using this account (imap with a lot of folders). On another box I got a POP3 account and an IMAP with a few folders and rarely need to restart. Never had this specific problem before though. It usually just stops downloading emails. -- Fernando Rodriguez
