Kernel Modules that Lie About Their Licenses 587
Posted
by
CmdrTaco
from the why-can't-we-just-get-along dept.
from the why-can't-we-just-get-along dept.
jon787 writes "An email to LKML about the Linuxant's HSF Modem drivers lying to the kernel about their license has prompted some interesting replies. Lots of talk about how to effectively blacklist these kind of things; a patch is here. One of the more interesting is this one. Linus as always has his $0.02."
/0 is like a period, it ends the statement. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:/0 is like a period, it ends the statement. (Score:5, Informative)
\0 is like a period.
Re:/0 is like a period, it ends the statement. (Score:5, Insightful)
LinuxAnt is really screwed here, as their drivers obviously won't work anymore
Re:/0 is like a period, it ends the statement. (Score:5, Interesting)
WRONG: It's about support.... (Score:5, Interesting)
If a kernel oops or panic occurs in a driver, it's important for the kernel developers to quickly know if it's a GPL driver (or a 3rd party binary only driver that they shouldn't even waste their time looking at). Too much noise is generated on LKML for broken binary drivers that just can't be fixed or troubleshooted.
Zealotry has it's hand in that Open Source people really only want to fix Open Source drivers.
Your clever circumvention idea is well known, it will not save you in getting kernel developer support, however.
Re:/0 is like a period, it ends the statement. (Score:3, Interesting)
Since they're accessing "GPL data structures" solely for the purpose of interoperability between their driver and the kernel, wouldn't that be allowed under the DMCA interop
Re:LinuxAnt is really screwed? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:LinuxAnt is really screwed? (Score:5, Informative)
s/modifies/modifies and distributes modified/g (Score:3, Informative)
Re:LinuxAnt is really screwed? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:LinuxAnt is really screwed? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nonsense... The GPL is for everyone who values their freedom.
The GPL is used by many developers who distribute the fruits of their effort for nothing beyond the expectation that anyone who finds their work useful enough to build their own products upon will provide said products under the same license. Even if those products are sold for profit, the derivative work should be as Free
Good Luck (Score:5, Interesting)
The court rightly ruled that the console designer caused the code to display the trademark and that they were responsible for any confusion that resulted.
Putting MODULE_LICENSE("GPL\0... in their code could be viewed by the courts as using a method of operation to accomplish a module load. It is very unlikely that they would view it as a grant of a GP License to someone who received the code.
Re:Good Luck (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with the compatibility argument is that it's wrong. The primary purpose of the license string is to track whether the kernel has loaded a closed-source module. Many kernel hackers choose to ignore bug reports from systems that have loaded closed-source modules since there's a very good chance that the bug is in code that they can't access and fix. But failing to export a GPL compatible license string doesn't have any effect on the kernel's ability to load and run a module, so there's no compatibility reason to export a dishonest description of the module's license.
Re:Good Luck (Score:5, Interesting)
Now I kind of like that justice, but that's because I happen to fucking hate winmodems even more than I hate closed drivers. It's still a pretty good reason, though, to have your driver lie to the kernel. Maybe, just maybe, you're sure your driver is ok, and don't want its closed-ness to get in the way of people getting bug reports for completely different parts of the kernel.
Re:Good Luck (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed, in theory. But the solution they use here is worse, no? Because now, instead of unhappy users, you have ticked off kernel developers. And they have no reason to support you, your users, your business model, anything. They now start talking about blacklisting you and your drivers and your children from the kernel in any way whatsoever. So now, instead of having stuff that worked but didn't get free support, you have stuff that won't work because the community has deci
Re:Good Luck (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not just a political issue, but I guess if you have political issues with operating systems, that's a conveniently ignorant view to take of the situation. This driver is surreptitiously loading itself as non-GPL code while telling us that it is GPL. This effects the way Linux hackers treat bug reports that are tainted with this module. This is accomplished by loading that "GPL" flag and enabling helpers that prevent bugs reports from being flagged as tainted.
Therefore, not only does it complicate bug reports, it complicates bug reports by loading pieces of code that it's not allowed to. I'd say that makes it malware, rather than a political issue.
Re:Good Luck (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good Luck (Score:3, Insightful)
In which case, the bug should also manifest itself if the modem wasn't loaded, so why lie about the module licence?.
What companies are doing if they lie in the module licence is using the linux developers as 1st line support - someone looks at the problem in a so-called "clean" kernel, tracks it down to one bolted on "black box" and refer the user to the
Re:Good Luck (Score:5, Informative)
- to "taint" the kernel so that anyone posting an oops to the lkml will get ignored.
- to deny certain interfaces marked as GPL-only to the module.
Modules don't need to be GPL (Score:5, Informative)
However it isn't, you can load code with any license you wish, therefore this is not required for interoperability, and such a defense wouldn't be valid.
Re:Good Luck (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Good Luck (Score:3, Informative)
It's important to note that Linuxant's stated reason for doing this was to avoid worrying the users with a "loading tainted module" warning on startup. There was not even the attempt at a technical arguement.
Re:Good Luck (Score:5, Insightful)
1. That's a trademark, this is copyright. Very different.
2. There is no real reason why they _have_ to have "GPL" at the start there. Their code will work without it, it will just cause a message to the effect that there are non-GPL drivers loaded to be displayed.
3. In the case you site it _is_ the console's integral code that displays the trademark. In this case it is the module code in question that includes the text "GPL", followed by a string termination character, in a space reserved for the module's license.
OTOH, I would note that the letters GPL do not in themselves constitue a license grant; they are merely an abbreviation that is usually used to refer to a specific license. In this case, however, they could just as easily stand for "Greg's Private License" (under which you don't get any rights whatsoever).
Thought experiment (Score:5, Insightful)
Suppose that Lexmark made a printer that looked for a certain string in a ROM on an ink cartridge. Let's say the string was "The manufacturer of this cartridge agrees to the terms of the ELL (Evil Lexmark License)." If the string is present, the printer works great; if the string is not present, the printer has undesirable behavior of some kind.
Further suppose you want to make an ink cartridge for your Lexmark printer, and thus for the purposes of optimum interoperability, you imbed into the ROM: "The manufacturer of this cartridge agrees to the terms of the ELL (Evil Lexmark License).\0Just kidding. Of course I don't REALLY agree to the Evil Lexmark License, because after all, IT'S EVIL!! It even has \"Evil\" right there in the name, what more proof do you need?!? Sheesh, people!"
Are you bound to the ELL?
Re:Thought experiment (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thought experiment (Score:4, Insightful)
I seem to remember this from the early days of IE....
Re:Thought experiment (Score:5, Informative)
For example, here's one sample of a possible Netscape 2 user agent string:
Mozilla/2.02 [fr] (WinNT; I)
Then Microsoft developed Internet Explorer. IE versions shared similar user agent strings, but this is one for IE4.0:
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.0; Windows 95)
Now, most open source browsers allow you to copy Internet Explorer and have a user agent such as:
Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows XP) Gecko/whatever
So we have Mozilla/Firefox/etc. which copied Internet Explorer which copied (closed source) Netscape. Clear as mud!
Re:Thought experiment (Score:4, Insightful)
> great; if the string is not present, the printer
> has undesirable behavior of some kind.
But there is where you analogy breaks down. If all the printer did was log in it's memory somewhere that a non-lexmark ink cart had been used so they could void your warranty for any printhead damage there would be no objection. But printers refuse to print without the secret knock and linux will load a module without the GPL tag.
Re:Thought experiment (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact is, the kernel doesn't arbitarily malfunction when it's tainted. Instead, the taintedness is a great sign to tell the user that they really need to go to the original authors for help since no one else is able to properly debug their proper (and of course, two different modules from two different companies which each taint the kernel creates a problem which no single entity can resolve). Faking the string to not cause taintedness helps no one (in the short term it might help the company, but it might not in the long run; people might pay support money to get bugs fixed in one tainted module). Faking a string in a printer cartridge helps the user to get cheaper ink. It also helps create competition (always a good thing).
Ironically, Lexmark's cases against various clone ink cartridge makers might decide the result of this same type of deception. Faking a string to make some program behave the way you want might be unhelpful and possibly unethical (by misleading users into believing they're using only GPLed code or wasting developers time on problems they can't solve thanks to code they can't see), but it's hard to see how it could be made illegal. Now getting such companies for false advertising...
Re:Thought experiment (Score:3, Insightful)
This is more like the manufacturer actually printing "official Lexmark ink cartridge" on the cartridge.
Imagine if the printer failed and the user sent it to Lexmark for it to be fixed. Would Lexmark really be out of line if they claimed that the user broke it by putting in that unapproved cartridge?
Re:Is there a command that lists the licenses? (Score:5, Informative)
Linuxant's explanation (Score:5, Informative)
Of course Linus has something to say. (Score:5, Insightful)
My modem driver must be broken... (Score:3, Funny)
Squashing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Great idea, for this hack, anyway. Problem is, they'll come up with something else next time. I think this one really is up to the lawyers, unfortunately.
When it's acceptable to lie (Score:4, Funny)
Re:When it's acceptable to lie (Score:4, Funny)
Then weigh the resulting print job! EZ Huh?
Get over it (Score:4, Insightful)
BUT... the linux kernel developers need to get over their fanaticism about open-source drivers. There are many reasons companies cannot or will not make their driver source public. For wireless cards, the FCC effectively prohibits it. For video cards and others, much of the value of the card is in fact in the driver and companies have a right to keep that under wraps.
Re:Get over it (Score:3, Interesting)
Can't get over it (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Can't get over it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can't get over it (Score:3, Insightful)
If you can't find it in your heart to accept binary drivers, maybe computers aren't for you ;) j/k
Re:Can't get over it (Score:4, Interesting)
Give more credit than that.
I realize they won't work, but firmware should not be a core component of a hardware company, they should work on their hardware first, and not consider firmware a company-breaking secret technology.
For instance, open firmware makes this possible [techtv.com].
Re:Can't get over it (Score:3, Insightful)
Firmware can be valuable intellectual property just like any other hardware/software. If a company chooses to keep it closed, that is their decision. If you don't like it, don't buy that piece of hardware. Unfortunately, you'll probably find a small selection, at least today.
If a company finds a drop in sales due to keeping closed source, they'll change their business model to be competitive. If on the other hand most people don't care,
ObDMCA reference (Score:4, Insightful)
And with the DMCA firmly in place, it will be illegal to hack YOUR hardware.
Jeez, I used to think I might be a little paranoid, but not any more...
Re:Can't get over it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can't get over it (Score:5, Insightful)
The hell you say. A Cisco router is just a CPU and some RAM with a few IO ports thrown in. Its the IOS firmware and software that makes it do its thing.
Re:Can't get over it (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither do the kernel developers; the -great-great-etc-grandparent's assertion that they actively refuse to allow all things closed source was a straw man. All the kernel developers want to be able to do is have the kernel note when it is running a closed-source driver, so that they can easily filter out bug reports that would require them to have access to sources they don't have. They don't want to get blamed for problems caused by someone else's code whom they can't do anything about. Who in the hell can fault them for that?
But then its MY choice, not the kernel nazis. I thought that is what Linux was all about, Free as in speech, not as in beer.
It is your choice. The "kernel nazis" are in whole hearted agreement. They just want to be able to mark kernel dumps from kernels they can't fix. Their choice. Comprende?
Re:Can't get over it (Score:4, Insightful)
When you buy a router, you're buying the function of routing. That's nearly 100% implemented in the firmware (for consumer-level routers, probably IS 100%). The hardware is just there to support the firmware's function.
Re:Get over it (Score:4, Insightful)
That is a hard requirement for Linux success, in the past, now, and in the future.
For example if 3D desktops becomes the standard open source 3D driver will need to be developed, if the gfx companies don't like that we need to take our money someplace else.
For the record I do run nvidia binary driver today.
Re:Get over it (Score:3, Insightful)
And in a perfect world there would be no war or hunger.
That is a hard requirement for Linux success, in the past, now, and in the future.
No, that is a hard requirement that is going to further alienate the Linux community and make companies less likely to bother supporting their hardware on the platform. What this will result in is drivers made by the community that work,
Re:Get over it (Score:3, Insightful)
There is NOT a problem with binary only vs. open source modules. It is a problem with the company lying to the kernel, saying their module has a GPL liscense, when in fact it does not. There would be no problem if the liscense string had said:
"GPL for files in the \"GPL\" directory; for others, only LICENSE file applies"
instead, however, it says:
"GPL\0for files in the \"GPL\" directory; for others, only LICENSE file applies"
Notice the sneaky \0.
Excuse me, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but the kernel is not a person, right? In fact lying to hardware/software is a well-accepted practice for interoperability, emulation and fair use. If we want it to be illegal, we might as well defend DMCA.
Re:Excuse me, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
That would make sense if this had anything to do with "interoperability, emulation and fair use". The kernel doesn't care what license it is; it will load a module under any license. This is strictly a user documentation string for the people who might have personal care about the license. You can put "This code 0wned by Darl", and it will load just fine.
This is strictly a case of a manufacturer
Get over it? Can't... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Get over it (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the FCC says the card cannot do certain things. Putting these restrictions in the drivers of each individual OS is not a good plan. The restrictions belong in the firmware. This is a safer way to ensure FCC compliance at the same time as allowing open source drivers.
The linux kernel developers need to get over their fanaticism about open-source drivers.
Who the hell are you to tell the kernel developers what they should care about? The kernel is licensed and written the way it is because the developers want it like that. If 3rd parties aren't prepared to play along, then they don't have to release linux drivers. They can't have it both ways.
Re:Get over it (Score:5, Informative)
The kernel will happily load any modules you tell it to, binary or not, licensed or not. The reason this tag exists is so the loading of a binary driver will "taint" your kernel. That way when you submit a bug report, the kernel developers know that you had a binary only module loaded.
In that case, they'll ask you to reproduce the produce without the binary module loaded. If the problem doesn't happen, it's the vendor's problem, and not Linux's. And rightly so.
What's wrong with this?
Re:Get over it (Score:3, Insightful)
The Free Software movement was started my RMS because the spooler for the new Xerox printer installed at the AI Lab did not come with source code. It had a tendency to jam and not tell the user before he walked across the campus to retrieve his job. The old printer did this (IIRC) but RMS had the source and was able to notify the user (actually, all of the users with print jobs in the queue) so that the printer could be unjammed before a trip was wasted.
Accepting non-free drivers is giving up your freedom
Re:Get over it (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom means diffrent things to different people, but for most of us, I suspect, freedom is not ultimately defined by anything so trivial as access to the source code for a video driver.
I am freed from the whims of the developer
Then we can safely assume you are a master coder whose word is law in GNU/Linux?
Re:Get over it (Score:5, Interesting)
To be clear, this is just as much a choice of the manufacturer who decides to put sufficient amount of the driver into software such that the device has to be certified as a "hardware and software" combination, not just "hardware" itself.
I have participated in ETSI conformance testing: when you test the product against a known hardware and software combination, you are _held_ to that known hardware and software combination. If you alter the software (e.g. a new build), you need to recertify.
This is entirely fair IMHO, otherwise a dodgy bug in the new version of the software causes RF splatter and destroys the spectrum.
The issue here for the open source community is to either (a) convince the manufactures to put it all into hardware/firmware so that software is not part of the certification, or (b) separately certify the linux driver with the hardware.
Re:Get over it (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless of why it was proposed, the reason Linus finally accepted the MODULE_LICENSE stuff was that everyone was wasting a LOT of time trying to track down bugs that ended up being caused caused by binary-only drivers.
The effect of MODULE_LICENSE is mostly just to mark the kernel as "tainted" -- its internal state affected by code which isn't available for the kernel developers to consult when debugging.
This shows up in crash dumps, so if someone posts dump of a crash in which binary drivers were involved, the kernel developers know upfront not to bother (the bug has "crossed the county line", so to speak).
Linuxant's excuse is that the tainted message was too confusing for users (they don't appear to have any qualms about wasting kernel developer time).
Of course Linuxant's proprietary code which they can't let anyone see is pristine and perfect, and could never, ever be the cause of a bug...
Re:Get over it (Score:3, Funny)
Poor processes (Score:4, Insightful)
(And if the answer to the question is: "people will cheat and we can't stop them", then there is little point in playing legislator.)
Re:Poor processes (Score:3, Interesting)
It's true when it comes to closed products (like DVD players). But not when it comes to drivers that the kernel can actively choose to load or reject.
All it takes is a community-moderated database of drivers and their GPL-conformancy status. A non-conformant driver would be rejected by the kernel. Its authors would have to release the source code and have this vetted.
Something like the GPL equivalent of trusted computing.
Are they really 'lying'? (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I dont use linux and as such, this doesnt directly affect me. But still, it raises interesting questions about how far removed code has to be to be able to be licensed differently. The kernel module API is a publically available API, and Linus does not consider this to be far enough removed. So what is? Does the kernel have to adhere to the CPUs or Motherboards firmware license, because its using a publically available API just like kernel modules are?
Interesting. Very interesting!
Re:Binary modules, licensing, and module strings (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a moot point; a proprietary module that uses GPL symbols is an unauthorized derivative.
But how can some symbols be GPL and some not, considering that, as it stands, the entirety of the core kernel code is licensed under the GPL, and the GPL does not allow exceptions to that licensing? Im not trying to flame, its just not that clear to me! :)
Creative null character? (Score:4, Insightful)
But why? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think a more appropriate way of handling things would be have a message explaining _why_ the tainted message is coming up, and why they can't GPL the driver. Work with the system, not against it.
-Erwos
Re:But why? (Score:5, Informative)
For developers _YES_
How many times have you tried to debug the kernel? And how namy times have you done to without access to all the source code? (ie, with modules loaded for which you don't have the source.)
For more info, read LKML archives.
Re:But why? (Score:5, Informative)
Does that thing actually work? (Score:3, Insightful)
My God! (Score:5, Funny)
Insubordination at its worst! Lying to the kernel!
Private Function, get Corporal Punishement on the phone and have them admonished immediatley!
So what's it going to be? (Score:4, Insightful)
If /. has no respect for other people's choice in licenses and cheers people ignoring the license, then it must also cheer on people breaking the license in Linux. You can't have it both ways.
Re:So what's it going to be? (Score:4, Insightful)
There's no reason you need to do this. The kernel happily loads any license. They are lying for the sake of misleading users. There's nothing to circumvent. This is like Pizza Hut advertising that they are giving out Free Pizza, and then cutting off the edge of the coupon that says "$15 per pie charge". There is no technical reason for this; this is simply lying to the end users.
--
Evan
I know! (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure this hans't been done [microsoft.com] before.
Spend a penny (Score:4, Funny)
Lying should be OK... (Score:5, Insightful)
If Office 2003 started asking the Win32 API - areYouReallyMicrosoftWindows(). Then MS Windows would return true...
What would Wine get to return?
This is a settled question... (Score:5, Informative)
What would Wine get to return?
Wine would get to return true as well, if answering true was essential to get the software to work.
Take the case of the gameboy (I think). One of the checks the thing did when loading a game was to look for the Nintendo logo in the header of the game. If it wasn't there, it wouldn't run it. Someone else put the logo in their games to get it to run, Nintendo sued for trademark infringement. Nintendo lost, because they had made it absolutely necessary to include that logo in order for third parties to achieve interoperability with the product. Instead of preventing third parties from developing games (which was what they wanted), they lost control of their trademark to some degree. Not good.
However, this case is different. You don't need to lie to the kernel about your license to achieve interoperability. It'll load the module regardless of what you put in the license string. The only thing the license string does is to signal to the kernel developers that non-free modules are loaded into the kernel. It's been "tainted", and then they can choose to not support problems with tainted kernels.
This isn't lying to the kernel so much as it is lying to the kernel developers.
The system makes you lie (Score:4, Informative)
I prefer to develop my modules under the revised BSD license, so that others can port them to the BSDs without running into licensing issues. However, Linux will mark the kernel as tainted when a BSD-licensed module is inserted. So I mark them as Dual GPL/BSD, so that they can be loaded without complaints, although I really don't want to release them under GPL, as that would pose a risk that others add code under GPL that could then not be used in the BSDs.
Ok, that may sound confusing as I typed it in a hurry, but you can make sense of it if you try.
Re:The system makes you lie (Score:3, Insightful)
They could do so anyway. BSD-licensed code can b
Why bother - driver limited to 14kbps (Score:4, Informative)
From the license [linuxant.com]:
I mean, even RFC 1149 (TCP/IP over Carrier Pigeon) would be better :-)
This is crippleware.
Re:Why bother supporting obsolete hardware? (Score:3, Funny)
Your box will also run faster, as you won't be mimicking hardware functionality in software.
It will also be easier to combine 2 or more modem connections in a low-end box for faster speed.
Request the source (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do i care? (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a kernel. I have a device. With out said driver the kernel is useless to me.
So the driver is closed and propitiatory, as long as it works with my kernel why should I care. ( all religious OSS arguments aside.. I'm taking for a *real* reason )
The alternative seems to be no driver, and the kernel becomes a useless lump of code. We cant demand that companies that produce hardware support anything they don't want too, be happy they at least give us closed drivers... 5 years ago they didnt even do that, unless it was for a Microsoft kernel.
Re:Why do i care? (Score:4, Insightful)
Dinivin
Re:Why do i care? (Score:3, Insightful)
What happened here is a binary only module pulled a sneaky trick to say that it isn't a binary only module, and the debug information no longer tells the developers that the kernel was running with code they don't have the sources to debug, hence wastes their time trying to fi
Re:Why do i care? (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, why do I care about this at all?
The alternative seems to be no driver, and the kernel becomes a useless lump of code. We cant demand that companies that produce hardware support anything they don't want too, be happy they at least give us closed drivers... 5 years ago they didnt even do that, unless it was for a Microsoft kernel.
Some of us would rather support open drivers than closed drivers. When I buy hardware, I try to buy hardware with open drivers. Why? Because it directly affect
Re:Why do i care? (Score:5, Informative)
A)By faking a GPL license to avoid "tainting" the kernel, the company has made your life more difficult. Problems you have with the kernel won't be supported by developers unless you can recreate the problem without any closed-source modules loaded(otherwise the bug is likely in code they can't fix). Since the module is not marked by the kernel as closed source, unless you remember it is months or years down the road, you may forget that you need to unload it.
B)It wastes time the developers could otherwise be using to improve the kernel. Given a kernel dump that claims to be untainted, they could end up spending days hunting down a bug only to discover that it ultimately lies in a module they can't find source for. If the tainting mechanism had been allowed to work properly, the developer would have asked for a resubmission of the bug without any closed-source modules loaded, to ensure the bug is fixable by them, saving themself days of wasted effort.
What you, and a lot of other people seem to not be understanding is that, if this company hadn't faked the "GPL" line, the modules would still have loaded and worked perfectly. The developers aren't trying to keep closed source drivers from running (far from it), they just want to mark a kernel so that if there's a problem with it, they can save time by having a way to immediately identify whether they are capable of debugging it or not. That benefits everyone.
These people wanted $15 for a Linux driver (Score:3, Insightful)
I just went and bought a serial port external modem for $13 (shipped). Works like a charm.
Re:These people wanted $15 for a Linux driver (Score:3, Insightful)
Linuxant Responds and explains themselves. (Score:5, Informative)
On the otherhand I think everyone's eyes are open to possible malicious use of this and simular tricks.
Re:Linuxant Responds and explains themselves. (Score:3, Interesting)
Frankly, I still don't see why they should have bothered. Anyone who's gotten over the bar enough to know how to load and use their drivers should have read in their documentation that the many repetitive warnings were benign. They say:
Blacklisting is extreme (Score:4, Interesting)
FWIW IMHO the string ends at the \0 I don't care what garbage in memory exists after this, this is not a subtle issue or grey area, \0 ends the string, subsequent information is irrelevant.
But back to my subject, blacklisting is a bit heavy handed. Hmm... we have a company that provides drivers for Linux, yup they're proprietary winmodem drivers but they're there. To *suppress warnings* they have unfortunately chosen to prematurely end their string with a \0, that's really nasty and foolish but blacklisting them as a company from installing kernel modules is way frikin OTT.
How does this help joe public get his winmodem working?
How does this encourage any corporation from releasing proprietary drivers for in Linux? (Which are better than no drivers IMHO)
There are other drivers (particularly audio and graphics) that use proprietary code implemented by private companies and these are used every day by many thousands of Linux users.
Mods, read the whole thing please... (Score:3, Informative)
"...rather than blacklist Black people..." (emphasis added)
Linus was referring to "bad" people. This should be something other than Informative.
Re:I don't see what the big deal is (Score:3, Informative)
Basically, Linux and friends (in frusteration at trying to troubleshoot non-open-source drivers, where they can't tell what's going on or fix anything) introduced a "tainting" system. Basically, they refuse to handle bug reports or fix anything on a system that has any "tainted" modules loaded.
This tends to increase direct customer dissatisfaction with closed-source drivers.
nonGPL modules (Score:4, Informative)
One way to note this is have each module announce its license to the kernel, and a method exists for this.
I think the intent is clearly to try and fool people into supporting this module, even if that person wishes to avoid supporting non GPL code.
I think this is very underhanded, and going to create significant ill will with some developers.
Re:I don't see what the big deal is (Score:3, Interesting)
They are releasing a non-GPL module with a small GPL wrapper and there is nothing wrong with that. That is what NVIDIA does. However, in the source code for the GPLed wrap
Re:What is MODULE_LICENSE? (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0
-Alan
Re:Here goes my karma... (Score:3, Insightful)
The RIAA would give away their entire music library for free, *including* the individual samples and source data, with the sole proviso that people not take their samples and include them in music where the sample data is not in turn released.
Then someone ran out and sold a song that swiped RIAA member samples without releasing their own.
That would probably get people on the side of the RIAA, yes.
The actual s
Re:Real world vs. fanboy fantasies (Score:5, Informative)
Only clueless fanboys would give a damn about under which license their drivers are distributed. As long as they do what they're supposed, so what?
The kernel developers have a tainting system in place because they won't debug kernels that have drivers loaded that are closed-source. It's too hard for them to tell whether that driver might have been responsible, and very difficult for them to fix any problems.
Try seeing how interested Microsoft is with fixing problems in other people's proprietary drivers. It's not all that high.
This is different from something meaningful, like Microsoft's excellent WHLQ certification. I'm surprised that no other vendor, including LinuxOS Inc., has copied the idea of certified drivers yet. Microsoft has taken the initiative to take responsibility, this is something that the GPG/Linux community needs to copy.
WHQL is primarily a mechanism designed to give Microsoft strategic power in the software market. It has little to do with software quality, though it is billed as such (just as DRM is billed as an anti-virus/malware scheme by MS). It is intended to grant them ultimate authority over what software is released for their system -- they have the power to refuse to sign any driver release if they need to do so as a lever, which gives them tremendous power over device manufacturers. This is tremenously more powerful and intrusive than the Linux driver tainting system, which works on an honor system. WHQL ensures only basic functionality is in place -- WHQL testing does not involve audititing code, checking for corner cases, or do any of the things necessary to produce a good, bug-free driver.