Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 10:53:39 PM Rich Freeman wrote: On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Fernando Rodriguez frodriguez.develo...@outlook.com 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. The point I was trying to make is that just like the email would be useless unless I have a Quran so will a program be useless without the library it depends on. I did say it wasn't a very good analogy. 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. The linker/loader doesn't load anything either, it just tells the kernel to load it...the kernel doesn't load it either, it tells the cpu to do it and so on. The point is that the symbols are instructions too, they're just not executed by the processor but interpreted by the loader. It all starts with the developer's decision to link against the library in order to take advantage of _existing works_. 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! Yet just about everyone would agree that if I fireup gimp and edit the picture and save it as a jpg would be a derived work. But for an end user there's no difference. The difference is only in the implementation. Both files contain binary code, one is interpreted by the cpu the other by an image viewer. One is statically linked to the original work the other dynamically. If this does goes to court a judge will have to determine if the letter of the law still serves it's intended purpose if it doesn't (and it obviously doesn't) then it's obsolete and the loophole needs to be patched. -- Fernando Rodriguez
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
Am Wed, 19 Aug 2015 21:13:01 -0400 schrieb Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org: 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. What do you think of the input the lawyers he went to gave him [0]: Linus, however, believes that GPL-only exports are significant. I've talked to a lawyer or two, and (a) there's an absolutely _huge_ difference and (b) they liked it. The fact is, the law isn't a blind and mindless computer that takes what you say literally. Intent matters a LOT. And using the xxx_GPL() version to show that it's an internal interface is very meaningful indeed. One of the lawyers said that it was a much better approach than trying to make the license explain all the details - codifying the intention in the code itself is not only more flexible, but a lot less likely to be misunderstood. In the rest of the email [1] he writes: I think both them said that anybody who were to change a xyz_GPL to the non-GPL one in order to use it with a non-GPL module would almost immediately fall under the willful infringement thing, and that it would make it MUCH easier to get triple damages and/or injunctions, since they clearly knew about it. I suspect programmers make horrible lawyers. They nitpick on details that sane humans don't. I think programmers often end up forgetting about the fact that human interactions don't work that way. Common sense makes a lot of difference, and DWIM is not just possible, but it's the only thing that matters. Linus [0] https://lwn.net/Articles/154602/ [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/154603/ -- Marc Joliet -- People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know we don't - Bjarne Stroustrup pgpwUTjabqHlB.pgp Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 3:24 AM, Fernando Rodriguez frodriguez.develo...@outlook.com wrote: The point I was trying to make is that just like the email would be useless unless I have a Quran so will a program be useless without the library it depends on. I did say it wasn't a very good analogy. Arguably the library is also useless without the program that links to it. I don't think whether something is useful on its own really is a factor in establishing that it is a derived work. Rifftrax is generally considered to not be a derived work of the movies it is associated with. And yet, it is of limited usefulness on its own. At least, it is no more useful than a program is without its linked library (a program without its linked libraries could possibly be useful in some ways). 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. Yet just about everyone would agree that if I fireup gimp and edit the picture and save it as a jpg would be a derived work. But for an end user there's no difference. The difference is only in the implementation. Both files contain binary code, one is interpreted by the cpu the other by an image viewer. One is statically linked to the original work the other dynamically. The analogy still holds. Gimp isn't a derived work of the Mona Lisa. Your email telling me to draw a mustache on top of it isn't a derived work of the Mona Lisa. Even a picture of a mustache stored in a file with the same dimensions of your picture of the Mona Lisa positioned so that it ends up right over her lips isn't a derived work of the Mona Lisa. It isn't a derived work until you actually save it. In the same way a kernel module isn't a derived work of the kernel. The combined kernel+module image in RAM would be. If this does goes to court a judge will have to determine if the letter of the law still serves it's intended purpose if it doesn't (and it obviously doesn't) then it's obsolete and the loophole needs to be patched. There is plenty of history to suggest that derivative works were never intended to cover references. A SparkNotes for a book can comprehensively reference passages in a book and discuss every aspect of its plot and is not considered a derivative work of the book. Rifftrax is completely synced to the audio/video for a movie and is not considered a derivative work. I don't think this is a loophole. The purpose of the derivative works clause of copyright was so that I couldn't add one line to the kernel and call it an original work and redistribute the whole thing under my own copyright. That would be a derivative work. I can't even run the thing through ROT13 or gzip and call it an original work - it is just an adaptation that still contains most of the content of the original in some way. In the statue derivative works are works which contain substantial portions of the original in some way. A kernel module doesn't contain much of the kernel at all. It just contains some symbol names. Similar arguments are made about fan fiction, and that is also an area where the law has not been fully tested. If I write a completely original story that includes Harry Potter as a character most would argue that it is fair use at worst as far as copyright is concerned. If I write an extra chapter that is intended to go in the middle or end of a Harry Potter novel, I'd probably be on similar ground. While cases around situations like these haven't been fully tried in court, so far most indications are that courts have been reluctant to uphold copyright claims against works like these, and decisions to the contrary have mostly been reversed on appeal. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 4:40 AM, Marc Joliet mar...@gmx.de wrote: Am Wed, 19 Aug 2015 21:13:01 -0400 schrieb Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org: 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. What do you think of the input the lawyers he went to gave him [0]: I don't know. You didn't provide it, and neither did Linus. Lawyers also don't have the authority to write the law. In fact, in every single case that goes to court there are at least two lawyers who disagree on how the case should be resolved. I think both them said that anybody who were to change a xyz_GPL to the non-GPL one in order to use it with a non-GPL module would almost immediately fall under the willful infringement thing, and that it would make it MUCH easier to get triple damages and/or injunctions, since they clearly knew about it. IF it were infringement, I agree. It is a bit like putting a lock on your door. Even if the lock is easy to defeat it shows intent. I don't take issue with that argument. However, if I stick a lock on somebody else's gate it doesn't make them a trespasser if they cut it. Linus doesn't get to change the law. He's just drawing a line in the sand. -- 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 11:22 PM, Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org wrote: 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 The party in this case was also uploading files, and it seems to me that the mention of downloading was made in conjunction with him being the uploader. The downloading side of this argument was never really litigated on its own since it would be moot to the infringement claim since the party was also uploading. I'd be more interested in a case where a court holds a party liable for copyright infringement when the ONLY activity they took part in was downloading a copyrighted work. I've yet to hear of a copyright holder even pursing such a case. -- Rich
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 torva...@osdl.org Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? Original-Message-ID: pine.lnx.4.58.0312040753550.2...@home.osdl.org Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 15:59:35 GMT Message-ID: fa.j5ccqt9.1e20...@ifi.uio.no 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 Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Jeremi Piotrowski jeremi.piotrow...@gmail.com 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 torva...@osdl.org 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] 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 m...@gentoo.org 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 Wednesday, August 19, 2015 7:00:15 AM Rich Freeman wrote: On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org 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] 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 frodriguez.develo...@outlook.com 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
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 jeremi.piotrow...@gmail.com 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: [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 frodriguez.develo...@outlook.com 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 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
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 Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org wrote: On 08/19/2015 05:28 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Fernando Rodriguez frodriguez.develo...@outlook.com 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 frodriguez.develo...@outlook.com 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
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 Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Jeremi Piotrowski jeremi.piotrow...@gmail.com 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 Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Fernando Rodriguez frodriguez.develo...@outlook.com 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 9:12 PM, Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org wrote: On 08/19/2015 09:05 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org 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 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
Rich Freeman wrote: On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Fernando Rodriguez frodriguez.develo...@outlook.com 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 Wednesday, August 19, 2015 9:09:59 PM Rich Freeman wrote: On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Fernando Rodriguez frodriguez.develo...@outlook.com 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
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 m...@gentoo.org 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 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
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org 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 7:30 PM, Fernando Rodriguez frodriguez.develo...@outlook.com 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
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 08/19/2015 09:05 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org 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
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Jeremi Piotrowski jeremi.piotrow...@gmail.com 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 Wednesday, August 19, 2015 9:20:41 PM Rich Freeman wrote: On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org 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] 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 frodriguez.develo...@outlook.com 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
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
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org 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 Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org 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 Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org 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: [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 jeremi.piotrow...@gmail.com 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
Am Tue, 18 Aug 2015 21:54:30 -0400 schrieb Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org: 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: [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 ri...@gentoo.org: 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
On 08/19/2015 10:39 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:35 PM, Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org 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 Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Fernando Rodriguez frodriguez.develo...@outlook.com 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 Wednesday, August 19, 2015 10:43:05 PM Rich Freeman wrote: On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Fernando Rodriguez frodriguez.develo...@outlook.com 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 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. And would we really want it any other way? How is this not like Brother sticking chips in their ink cartridges containing copyrighted code, or the chip in lightning cables? They are similar. The original GPL was a legal hack: to take copyright and use it in a novel way, granting freedoms rather than restricting them. Which coincidentally is how your example differs from EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL =)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
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.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
walt wrote: entire post severely snipped for brevity On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 00:53:37 -0500 Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: walt wrote: Linus and friends have been marking lots of existing kernel symbols with the SYMBOL_EXPORT_GPL macro, which was designed to block the loading of any kernel module not explicitly licensed as GPL software. The only module I have is Nvidia but that is one thing that doesn't work at times. Sometimes, it doesn't want to boot all the way. It doesn't even get through the kernel loading everything up at times. The Nvidia module is causing your problem then, because Nvidia supplies their binary blob under their own proprietary license. I'm using an elderly version of x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers on an elderly machine, but when I run 'modinfo -l nvidia' I see 'NVIDIA' as the response. If the response isn't 'GPL' then the affected kernels will refuse to load the module at boot time. The kernel devs have provided a workaround for the problem, however: You (or a gentoo dev) need to edit the source code for the problem kernel by changing the SYMBOL_EXPORT_GPL to SYMBOL_EXPORT. That macro appears maybe hundreds of places in the kernel sources, and has been there for years now, but only one or two of those source files needs to be patched, depending on which of those exported symbols is needed by your particular binary driver (e.g. nvidia-drivers or ati-drivers). This whole GPL/module thing is far from new. What's new is that the kernel devs are slowly adding more kernel symbols to their black list. I think the idea is to turn up the pressure very slowly on companies like Nividia and ATI to discourage them from providing proprietary drivers while not driving them out of the linux market completely. Every year linux is getting stronger and the devs can afford to be pushier with wealthy corporations who need more linux customers. I think there is two issues but you are addressing one of them it seems. The other issue happens when the kernel panics and it reboots itself. It doesn't complete the boot process. The one you describe could be it tho. On that one, I don't have a GUI. Since I use my puter a lot, I usually just reboot to a known working kernel and deal with it later. While I think I get the idea of what the kernel devs are doing. I also think they should let the users send the message. The users can start buying ATI or other video hardware and at some point, they will either get their ducks in a row or lose sales. In the meantime, the users decide what software they want to use. 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. If you have any info on how to override this, I'd be glad to see it. Just a link or something would help. Thanks. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
walt wrote: On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 15:49:16 -0500 Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: I think there is two issues but you are addressing one of them it seems. The other issue happens when the kernel panics and it reboots itself. It doesn't complete the boot process. The one you describe could be it tho. On that one, I don't have a GUI. Since I use my puter a lot, I usually just reboot to a known working kernel and deal with it later. While I think I get the idea of what the kernel devs are doing. I also think they should let the users send the message. The users can start buying ATI or other video hardware and at some point, they will either get their ducks in a row or lose sales. In the meantime, the users decide what software they want to use. 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. If you have any info on how to override this, I'd be glad to see it. Just a link or something would help. This is a bug for ati-drivers, but nvidia-drivers has exactly the same problem to solve. Comments 7, 8, 9 sum it up pretty well: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=548118 I read through that long thing. It seems the kernel folks are stirring up a storm that makes the users have to jump through hoops. Let me see if I get this right. The kernel devs don't want to allow a user to install a driver that they don't approve of. Those would include Nvidia and ATI it would seem, at least. So, since they don't like the drivers, they make it so that users can't use them. Which leaves users with two options, three if you like to jump a lot. Option one, don't upgrade your kernel and use the older versions, lacking security fixes and all that goes with it. Option 2, do without a GUI since you don't have video driver for your video card. Option 3, force the drivers to build and maybe even violate the law while doing it. It seems based on one post that you can't just change that code so that it will load like it has before. Well, at least not easily. 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. The kernel devs can stop using the drivers they don't like and sit there in a console with no GUI while the rest of us go on with life and using our video drivers that we are happy with. Sounds to simple don't it? LOL Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: If you have any info on how to override this, I'd be glad to see it. Just a link or something would help. I haven't tested it, but I'd think the simplest solution would be something like this (which just turns EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL into EXPORT_SYMBOL, and should be a lot easier than fixing every export that the drivers use): 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) I really think that this kind of approach by the kernel devs isn't really going to go anywhere. It might cause companies like nvidia/ati to just dump linux support, but it seems more likely that they'd just play workaround games. Maybe they create a GPL module that just exposes all the APIs as non-GPL. Maybe they make it clear that their module is non-GPL, but have it report itself as GPL to the kernel. 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. And would we really want it any other way? How is this not like Brother sticking chips in their ink cartridges containing copyrighted code, or the chip in lightning cables? 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. -- Rich
