> David Schwartz wrote:
> >> Indeed, but using the provided key is not circumventing. Loading a
> >> non-GPL module that uses GPL symbols anyway is prevented, so
> >> forcibly loading such a module "the rootkit way" by patching /dev/mem
> >> is a circumvention. Catch one of the script kiddies
> Closed modules are allowed only because an exception was made
> in the licencing. That didn't have to happen at all. Closed modules
This statement is false. Sorry but the law and my legal advice recommend
that I jump in and repeat the correction every time people repeat this
myth. As one of
David Schwartz wrote:
Indeed, but using the provided key is not circumventing. Loading a
non-GPL module that uses GPL symbols anyway is prevented, so
forcibly loading such a module "the rootkit way" by patching /dev/mem
is a circumvention. Catch one of the script kiddies inside the US, and
you
David Schwartz wrote:
Indeed, but using the provided key is not circumventing. Loading a
non-GPL module that uses GPL symbols anyway is prevented, so
forcibly loading such a module the rootkit way by patching /dev/mem
is a circumvention. Catch one of the script kiddies inside the US, and
you
Closed modules are allowed only because an exception was made
in the licencing. That didn't have to happen at all. Closed modules
This statement is false. Sorry but the law and my legal advice recommend
that I jump in and repeat the correction every time people repeat this
myth. As one of the
David Schwartz wrote:
Indeed, but using the provided key is not circumventing. Loading a
non-GPL module that uses GPL symbols anyway is prevented, so
forcibly loading such a module the rootkit way by patching /dev/mem
is a circumvention. Catch one of the script kiddies inside the US,
> Indeed, but using the provided key is not circumventing. Loading a
> non-GPL module that uses GPL symbols anyway is prevented, so
> forcibly loading such a module "the rootkit way" by patching /dev/mem
> is a circumvention. Catch one of the script kiddies inside the US, and
> you can
>
David Schwartz wrote:
The way I see this:
There is a copyright enforcement scheme. (A simple test for
the word GPL.) Trivial, but still an enforcement scheme.
If this were true, then the Linux kernel with it could not be distributed.
If it were a legal mechanism to prevent people from
David Schwartz wrote:
The way I see this:
There is a copyright enforcement scheme. (A simple test for
the word GPL.) Trivial, but still an enforcement scheme.
If this were true, then the Linux kernel with it could not be distributed.
If it were a legal mechanism to prevent people from
Indeed, but using the provided key is not circumventing. Loading a
non-GPL module that uses GPL symbols anyway is prevented, so
forcibly loading such a module the rootkit way by patching /dev/mem
is a circumvention. Catch one of the script kiddies inside the US, and
you can
theoretically
> So what (legally) happens when someone does
> MODULE_IS_UNDER_GPL_LICENSE(2), (~0) or (-1)? Does the judge
> get confused?
> Then better use strings and an appropriate check.
Please let me not believe it's not possible to have a compilation test
on that that would issue a #error if param is
So what (legally) happens when someone does
MODULE_IS_UNDER_GPL_LICENSE(2), (~0) or (-1)? Does the judge
get confused?
Then better use strings and an appropriate check.
Please let me not believe it's not possible to have a compilation test
on that that would issue a #error if param is not
> On Feb 3 2007 10:31, David Schwartz wrote:
> >
> >The way out of the GPL problem is to make clear that it is *not* a
> >copyright enforcement scheme
>
> So why do we have EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL then, if
>
> - there shall be no enforcement (such as requiring modules to carry
> exactly one
> Anyway. Are we doing this or not - the more I think about it, the more
> I'm kinda "happy" to just leave things as they are. Yes, bad people will
> continuing doing bad things no matter what we do. Do we really want to
> change stuff just to work around obvious abuse? Alan?
Actually checking
Alan wrote:
On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 21:47:36 +0100 (MET)
Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Feb 3 2007 10:31, David Schwartz wrote:
The way out of the GPL problem is to make clear that it is *not* a
copyright enforcement scheme
So why do we have EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL then, if
Because if
On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 21:47:36 +0100 (MET)
Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Feb 3 2007 10:31, David Schwartz wrote:
> >
> >The way out of the GPL problem is to make clear that it is *not* a
> >copyright enforcement scheme
>
> So why do we have EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL then, if
Because
On Feb 3 2007 10:31, David Schwartz wrote:
>
>The way out of the GPL problem is to make clear that it is *not* a
>copyright enforcement scheme
So why do we have EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL then, if
- there shall be no enforcement (such as requiring modules to carry
exactly one MODULE_LICENSE,
> The way I see this:
> There is a copyright enforcement scheme. (A simple test for
> the word GPL.) Trivial, but still an enforcement scheme.
If this were true, then the Linux kernel with it could not be distributed.
If it were a legal mechanism to prevent people from modifying modules, then
The way I see this:
There is a copyright enforcement scheme. (A simple test for
the word GPL.) Trivial, but still an enforcement scheme.
If this were true, then the Linux kernel with it could not be distributed.
If it were a legal mechanism to prevent people from modifying modules, then
On Feb 3 2007 10:31, David Schwartz wrote:
The way out of the GPL problem is to make clear that it is *not* a
copyright enforcement scheme
So why do we have EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL then, if
- there shall be no enforcement (such as requiring modules to carry
exactly one MODULE_LICENSE, and
On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 21:47:36 +0100 (MET)
Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 3 2007 10:31, David Schwartz wrote:
The way out of the GPL problem is to make clear that it is *not* a
copyright enforcement scheme
So why do we have EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL then, if
Because if you go
Alan wrote:
On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 21:47:36 +0100 (MET)
Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 3 2007 10:31, David Schwartz wrote:
The way out of the GPL problem is to make clear that it is *not* a
copyright enforcement scheme
So why do we have EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL then, if
Because if you
Anyway. Are we doing this or not - the more I think about it, the more
I'm kinda happy to just leave things as they are. Yes, bad people will
continuing doing bad things no matter what we do. Do we really want to
change stuff just to work around obvious abuse? Alan?
Actually checking the
On Feb 3 2007 10:31, David Schwartz wrote:
The way out of the GPL problem is to make clear that it is *not* a
copyright enforcement scheme
So why do we have EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL then, if
- there shall be no enforcement (such as requiring modules to carry
exactly one MODULE_LICENSE,
On Feb 2 2007 17:12, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> >> >if (MODULE_LICENSE_contains_null(license))
>> >> > printk(KERN_WARNING "this module's license is suspicious\n");
>>
>> Whatever, I just want to see how you are going to implement
>> MODULE_LICENSE_contains_null.
>
>I was busy on other things this
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 20:06:42 +0100 (MET) Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On Feb 2 2007 09:49, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 18:41:02 +0100 (MET) Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >> On Feb 2 2007 08:53, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >> >
> >> >if (MODULE_LICENSE_contains_null(license))
> >> >
On Feb 2 2007 19:37, Paul Rolland wrote:
>> MODULE_IS_UNDER_GPL_LICENSE("yes\0 but only this .c file");
>>
>
>MODULE_IS_UNDER_GPL_LICENSE(0)
>(integer, not string).
So what (legally) happens when someone does
MODULE_IS_UNDER_GPL_LICENSE(2), (~0) or (-1)? Does the judge get confused?
Then better
On Feb 2 2007 09:49, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 18:41:02 +0100 (MET) Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> On Feb 2 2007 08:53, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> >
>> >if (MODULE_LICENSE_contains_null(license))
>> >printk(KERN_WARNING "this module's license is suspicious\n");
>>
>> Try to code that
> MODULE_IS_UNDER_GPL_LICENSE("yes\0 but only this .c file");
>
MODULE_IS_UNDER_GPL_LICENSE(0)
(integer, not string).
Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 18:41:02 +0100 (MET) Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On Feb 2 2007 08:53, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >
> >if (MODULE_LICENSE_contains_null(license))
> > printk(KERN_WARNING "this module's license is suspicious\n");
>
> Try to code that macro.
It's not a macro afaict.
---
~Randy
-
On Feb 2 2007 08:53, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>
>if (MODULE_LICENSE_contains_null(license))
> printk(KERN_WARNING "this module's license is suspicious\n");
Try to code that macro.
Jan
--
ft: http://freshmeat.net/p/chaostables/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 16:11:11 +0100 (MET) Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On Feb 2 2007 15:53, Paul Rolland wrote:
> >
> >If that is really one important point, why not simply adding a :
> >MODULE_IS_UNDER_GPL_LICENSE("yes|no")
> >and a
> >MODULE_IS_UNDER_GPL_LIKE_LICENSE("yes|no")
> >
> >or use 0 and 1
Hello,
> will be written to the object file will be "license=GPL\0for
> nothing\0".
> When this is interpreted back again in the kernel module
> loader, it is
> read as "license=GPL", having circumvented the loading mechanism and
> having wrongfully access to GPL symbols. According to Alexey
On Feb 2 2007 15:53, Paul Rolland wrote:
>
>If that is really one important point, why not simply adding a :
>MODULE_IS_UNDER_GPL_LICENSE("yes|no")
>and a
>MODULE_IS_UNDER_GPL_LIKE_LICENSE("yes|no")
>
>or use 0 and 1 instead of yes and no, and thus clearly avoid all the
>C string mess ?
David Schwartz wrote:
In any event, even if you assume it is a copyright enforcement scheme, it is
not circumvention to remove or disable such a scheme with the permission of
the copyright holder. Section 2 of the GPL grants just such permission.
The way I see this:
There is a copyright
> to me it even screams "bypassing or a digital copyright
> enforcement system".
> that sounds really close to "D.M.C.A. violation" :)
>
> thank goodness I'm not a laywer...
It is not. GPL export is *not* a copyright enforcement scheme. (See the many
times when this was discussed on this list.)
to me it even screams bypassing or a digital copyright
enforcement system.
that sounds really close to D.M.C.A. violation :)
thank goodness I'm not a laywer...
It is not. GPL export is *not* a copyright enforcement scheme. (See the many
times when this was discussed on this list.) The GPL
David Schwartz wrote:
In any event, even if you assume it is a copyright enforcement scheme, it is
not circumvention to remove or disable such a scheme with the permission of
the copyright holder. Section 2 of the GPL grants just such permission.
The way I see this:
There is a copyright
On Feb 2 2007 15:53, Paul Rolland wrote:
If that is really one important point, why not simply adding a :
MODULE_IS_UNDER_GPL_LICENSE(yes|no)
and a
MODULE_IS_UNDER_GPL_LIKE_LICENSE(yes|no)
or use 0 and 1 instead of yes and no, and thus clearly avoid all the
C string mess ?
Hello,
will be written to the object file will be license=GPL\0for
nothing\0.
When this is interpreted back again in the kernel module
loader, it is
read as license=GPL, having circumvented the loading mechanism and
having wrongfully access to GPL symbols. According to Alexey [
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 16:11:11 +0100 (MET) Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Feb 2 2007 15:53, Paul Rolland wrote:
If that is really one important point, why not simply adding a :
MODULE_IS_UNDER_GPL_LICENSE(yes|no)
and a
MODULE_IS_UNDER_GPL_LIKE_LICENSE(yes|no)
or use 0 and 1 instead of yes and
On Feb 2 2007 08:53, Randy Dunlap wrote:
if (MODULE_LICENSE_contains_null(license))
printk(KERN_WARNING this module's license is suspicious\n);
Try to code that macro.
Jan
--
ft: http://freshmeat.net/p/chaostables/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 18:41:02 +0100 (MET) Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Feb 2 2007 08:53, Randy Dunlap wrote:
if (MODULE_LICENSE_contains_null(license))
printk(KERN_WARNING this module's license is suspicious\n);
Try to code that macro.
It's not a macro afaict.
---
~Randy
-
To
MODULE_IS_UNDER_GPL_LICENSE(yes\0 but only this .c file);
MODULE_IS_UNDER_GPL_LICENSE(0)
(integer, not string).
Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
On Feb 2 2007 09:49, Randy Dunlap wrote:
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 18:41:02 +0100 (MET) Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Feb 2 2007 08:53, Randy Dunlap wrote:
if (MODULE_LICENSE_contains_null(license))
printk(KERN_WARNING this module's license is suspicious\n);
Try to code that macro.
It's not a
On Feb 2 2007 19:37, Paul Rolland wrote:
MODULE_IS_UNDER_GPL_LICENSE(yes\0 but only this .c file);
MODULE_IS_UNDER_GPL_LICENSE(0)
(integer, not string).
So what (legally) happens when someone does
MODULE_IS_UNDER_GPL_LICENSE(2), (~0) or (-1)? Does the judge get confused?
Then better use
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 20:06:42 +0100 (MET) Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Feb 2 2007 09:49, Randy Dunlap wrote:
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 18:41:02 +0100 (MET) Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Feb 2 2007 08:53, Randy Dunlap wrote:
if (MODULE_LICENSE_contains_null(license))
printk(KERN_WARNING this module's
On Feb 2 2007 17:12, Randy Dunlap wrote:
if (MODULE_LICENSE_contains_null(license))
printk(KERN_WARNING this module's license is suspicious\n);
Whatever, I just want to see how you are going to implement
MODULE_LICENSE_contains_null.
I was busy on other things this morning (my time).
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
But you're right, the MODULE_LICENSE tag really does imply that
licenses other than the GPL are ok.
yup.. BSD licensed modules are clearly ok as well..
So I guess we're going to go with Jan's change then.
I just wanted to discuss this briefly since I'm very keen for
> But you're right, the MODULE_LICENSE tag really does imply that
> licenses other than the GPL are ok.
yup.. BSD licensed modules are clearly ok as well..
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo
On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 10:51:23 +1000, Trent Waddington said:
> On 2/2/07, Tomas Carnecky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Can't you put this somewhere into the documentation: it's our kernel,
> > play by our rules, and our rules are, the license is what is visible in
> > 'printf(license)'?
>
> Here I
On 2/2/07, Tomas Carnecky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can't you put this somewhere into the documentation: it's our kernel,
play by our rules, and our rules are, the license is what is visible in
'printf(license)'?
Here I was thinking the rules were: all modules must be GPL and the
jerks who
Jon Masters wrote:
> need a technological mechanism here to enforce the obvious. To me, it
> just seems totally obvious (any legal comment?) that early C string
> termination is undermining the intent of the MODULE_LICENSE tag.
>
I completely agree with that. It's like I sign a contract and the
Trent Waddington wrote:
On 2/2/07, Jon Masters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok. I totally dig the *idea* here - I mean, this issue has been ongoing
for a long time now. But I'd like to see a few comments as to whether we
need a technological mechanism here to enforce the obvious. To me, it
just
On 2/2/07, Jon Masters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok. I totally dig the *idea* here - I mean, this issue has been ongoing
for a long time now. But I'd like to see a few comments as to whether we
need a technological mechanism here to enforce the obvious. To me, it
just seems totally obvious (any
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
Proposed patch to prohibit loading modules that use early C string
termination ("GPL\0 for nothing, folks!") to trick the kernel believing
it is loading a GPL driver.
Ok. I totally dig the *idea* here - I mean, this issue has been ongoing
for a long time now. But I'd
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 22:20:09 +0100 (MET) Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> ___The kernel patch___
>
> Just a few notes here.
>
>
> Comments welcome.
Good idea.
A diffstat summary would have been nice.
(See Documentation/SubmittingPatches)
Use a space between "if" and "(" below (multiple times):
Hello Ccs, hello list,
Finally a follow-up to the thread http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/11/1/170
___Abstract___
Proposed patch to prohibit loading modules that use early C string
termination ("GPL\0 for nothing, folks!") to trick the kernel believing
it is loading a GPL driver.
Hello Ccs, hello list,
Finally a follow-up to the thread http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/11/1/170
___Abstract___
Proposed patch to prohibit loading modules that use early C string
termination (GPL\0 for nothing, folks!) to trick the kernel believing
it is loading a GPL driver.
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 22:20:09 +0100 (MET) Jan Engelhardt wrote:
___The kernel patch___
Just a few notes here.
Comments welcome.
Good idea.
A diffstat summary would have been nice.
(See Documentation/SubmittingPatches)
Use a space between if and ( below (multiple times):
see
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
Proposed patch to prohibit loading modules that use early C string
termination (GPL\0 for nothing, folks!) to trick the kernel believing
it is loading a GPL driver.
Ok. I totally dig the *idea* here - I mean, this issue has been ongoing
for a long time now. But I'd
On 2/2/07, Jon Masters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok. I totally dig the *idea* here - I mean, this issue has been ongoing
for a long time now. But I'd like to see a few comments as to whether we
need a technological mechanism here to enforce the obvious. To me, it
just seems totally obvious (any
Trent Waddington wrote:
On 2/2/07, Jon Masters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok. I totally dig the *idea* here - I mean, this issue has been ongoing
for a long time now. But I'd like to see a few comments as to whether we
need a technological mechanism here to enforce the obvious. To me, it
just
Jon Masters wrote:
need a technological mechanism here to enforce the obvious. To me, it
just seems totally obvious (any legal comment?) that early C string
termination is undermining the intent of the MODULE_LICENSE tag.
I completely agree with that. It's like I sign a contract and the
On 2/2/07, Tomas Carnecky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can't you put this somewhere into the documentation: it's our kernel,
play by our rules, and our rules are, the license is what is visible in
'printf(license)'?
Here I was thinking the rules were: all modules must be GPL and the
jerks who make
On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 10:51:23 +1000, Trent Waddington said:
On 2/2/07, Tomas Carnecky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can't you put this somewhere into the documentation: it's our kernel,
play by our rules, and our rules are, the license is what is visible in
'printf(license)'?
Here I was
But you're right, the MODULE_LICENSE tag really does imply that
licenses other than the GPL are ok.
yup.. BSD licensed modules are clearly ok as well..
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
But you're right, the MODULE_LICENSE tag really does imply that
licenses other than the GPL are ok.
yup.. BSD licensed modules are clearly ok as well..
So I guess we're going to go with Jan's change then.
I just wanted to discuss this briefly since I'm very keen for
68 matches
Mail list logo
