Re: Point of gpl-only modules (flame)
Jimmy wrote: I know I'll be getting hell for this, I must be a masochist. Anyway, I've been trying to figure out what purpose the gpl-only code serves. What good comes out of disabling people from probing modules that do not have a gpl-compatible license? Who is disabling anything? Of cause, I would love to see more hardware manufactures release either full specs, or GPL'd drivers, and I'm sure it will happen, in time. But until then, why are people wasting time writing code to inhibit those who do not agree with them on licensing? It seems pretty childish to try and force some license on people, imagine trying to install firefox on Windows Vista, an error-dialog box appears: "This application has been denied access to the Windows API as its license are compatible with the Microsoft Philosophy" ? Now, i don't want to waste clock cycles on executing code that serves no purpose but restraining me from using my $1500 gfx card as intended, so will me removing that crap from the source result in somebody trying to obfuscate it to a point where neither of us know what is what? Also, how about a list of PROS, explain to me whats so cool about it? The kernel gets marked as tainted when you load proprietary modules because with no source code available there is no way to determine what kind of badness the code may have done to break the kernel. Bug reports from tainted kernels are generally given fairly little weight. -- Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada To email, remove "nospam" from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Point of gpl-only modules (flame)
linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote: Just don't expect the kernel developers to authorize its use, or show you how to do it! Well of course you can be totally up-front and public about it. That, after all, is the point of GPL. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Point of gpl-only modules (flame)
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > On Oct 2 2007 23:49, Jimmy wrote: >> >> Anyway, I've been trying to figure out what purpose the gpl-only code serves. >> What good comes out of disabling people from probing modules that do not >> have a >> gpl-compatible license? > > find /lib/modules/`uname -r` -iname '*.ko' | wc -l: > > 2021 > > Proprietary modules that I can think of: > > 5 to 10 > > It's not even 1/2 a !#$ percent. (Though knowing that many modules are for > not-so-common hw.) > >> It seems pretty childish to try and force some license on people, imagine >> trying to install firefox on Windows Vista, an error-dialog box appears: >> "This application has been denied access to the Windows API as its license >> are >> compatible with the Microsoft Philosophy" ? > > Not a kernel problem. > > (That said, MS would probably face yet another antitrust charge if it did > that. > Or better yet, people would just thankfully stop using it.) > >> Now, i don't want to waste clock cycles on executing code that serves no >> purpose but restraining me from using my $1500 gfx card as intended, > > Perhaps you intended to buy a game console instead? > > That said, no one is restraining you. You can edit the kernel source > and rip out all the GPL checks. On top, it's not like the ati or > nvidia blob-ola would not load in today's kernel. > > 01:00 ichi:~ > lsmod | grep nv > nvidia 4717076 22 > > Oh yeah, my kernel (unpatched, btw) really tries to stop me hard > from loading it. > >> so will me >> removing that crap from the source result in somebody trying to obfuscate it >> to >> a point where neither of us know what is what? >> >> Also, how about a list of PROS, explain to me whats so cool about it? >> >> - Jimmy > - Jimmy, a simple script can generate a link object that will resolve any kernel symbols for your module without any "export symbol" stuff at all. This was previously demonstrated to the enraged few who considered it immoral. Nevertheless, it's just as moral as bypassing RIAA copy protection. Just don't expect the kernel developers to authorize its use, or show you how to do it! Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.6.16.24 on an i686 machine (5592.59 BogoMips). My book : http://www.AbominableFirebug.com/ _ The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be privileged. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - and destroy all copies of this information, including any attachments, without reading or disclosing them. Thank you. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Point of gpl-only modules (flame)
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote: On Oct 2 2007 23:49, Jimmy wrote: Anyway, I've been trying to figure out what purpose the gpl-only code serves. What good comes out of disabling people from probing modules that do not have a gpl-compatible license? find /lib/modules/`uname -r` -iname '*.ko' | wc -l: 2021 Proprietary modules that I can think of: 5 to 10 It's not even 1/2 a !#$ percent. (Though knowing that many modules are for not-so-common hw.) It seems pretty childish to try and force some license on people, imagine trying to install firefox on Windows Vista, an error-dialog box appears: This application has been denied access to the Windows API as its license are compatible with the Microsoft Philosophy ? Not a kernel problem. (That said, MS would probably face yet another antitrust charge if it did that. Or better yet, people would just thankfully stop using it.) Now, i don't want to waste clock cycles on executing code that serves no purpose but restraining me from using my $1500 gfx card as intended, Perhaps you intended to buy a game console instead? That said, no one is restraining you. You can edit the kernel source and rip out all the GPL checks. On top, it's not like the ati or nvidia blob-ola would not load in today's kernel. 01:00 ichi:~ lsmod | grep nv nvidia 4717076 22 Oh yeah, my kernel (unpatched, btw) really tries to stop me hard from loading it. so will me removing that crap from the source result in somebody trying to obfuscate it to a point where neither of us know what is what? Also, how about a list of PROS, explain to me whats so cool about it? - Jimmy - Jimmy, a simple script can generate a link object that will resolve any kernel symbols for your module without any export symbol stuff at all. This was previously demonstrated to the enraged few who considered it immoral. Nevertheless, it's just as moral as bypassing RIAA copy protection. Just don't expect the kernel developers to authorize its use, or show you how to do it! Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.6.16.24 on an i686 machine (5592.59 BogoMips). My book : http://www.AbominableFirebug.com/ _ The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be privileged. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - and destroy all copies of this information, including any attachments, without reading or disclosing them. Thank you. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Point of gpl-only modules (flame)
linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote: Just don't expect the kernel developers to authorize its use, or show you how to do it! Well of course you can be totally up-front and public about it. That, after all, is the point of GPL. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Point of gpl-only modules (flame)
Jimmy wrote: I know I'll be getting hell for this, I must be a masochist. Anyway, I've been trying to figure out what purpose the gpl-only code serves. What good comes out of disabling people from probing modules that do not have a gpl-compatible license? Who is disabling anything? Of cause, I would love to see more hardware manufactures release either full specs, or GPL'd drivers, and I'm sure it will happen, in time. But until then, why are people wasting time writing code to inhibit those who do not agree with them on licensing? It seems pretty childish to try and force some license on people, imagine trying to install firefox on Windows Vista, an error-dialog box appears: This application has been denied access to the Windows API as its license are compatible with the Microsoft Philosophy ? Now, i don't want to waste clock cycles on executing code that serves no purpose but restraining me from using my $1500 gfx card as intended, so will me removing that crap from the source result in somebody trying to obfuscate it to a point where neither of us know what is what? Also, how about a list of PROS, explain to me whats so cool about it? The kernel gets marked as tainted when you load proprietary modules because with no source code available there is no way to determine what kind of badness the code may have done to break the kernel. Bug reports from tainted kernels are generally given fairly little weight. -- Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada To email, remove nospam from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Point of gpl-only modules (flame)
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:49:04 +0200 Jimmy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I know I'll be getting hell for this, I must be a masochist. > DO NOT FEED THE TROLL. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Point of gpl-only modules (flame)
On Oct 2 2007 23:49, Jimmy wrote: > > Anyway, I've been trying to figure out what purpose the gpl-only code serves. > What good comes out of disabling people from probing modules that do not have > a > gpl-compatible license? find /lib/modules/`uname -r` -iname '*.ko' | wc -l: 2021 Proprietary modules that I can think of: 5 to 10 It's not even 1/2 a !#$ percent. (Though knowing that many modules are for not-so-common hw.) > It seems pretty childish to try and force some license on people, imagine > trying to install firefox on Windows Vista, an error-dialog box appears: > "This application has been denied access to the Windows API as its license are > compatible with the Microsoft Philosophy" ? Not a kernel problem. (That said, MS would probably face yet another antitrust charge if it did that. Or better yet, people would just thankfully stop using it.) > Now, i don't want to waste clock cycles on executing code that serves no > purpose but restraining me from using my $1500 gfx card as intended, Perhaps you intended to buy a game console instead? That said, no one is restraining you. You can edit the kernel source and rip out all the GPL checks. On top, it's not like the ati or nvidia blob-ola would not load in today's kernel. 01:00 ichi:~ > lsmod | grep nv nvidia 4717076 22 Oh yeah, my kernel (unpatched, btw) really tries to stop me hard from loading it. > so will me > removing that crap from the source result in somebody trying to obfuscate it > to > a point where neither of us know what is what? > > Also, how about a list of PROS, explain to me whats so cool about it? > > - Jimmy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Point of gpl-only modules (flame)
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 11:49:04PM +0200, Jimmy wrote: > Also, how about a list of PROS, explain to me whats so cool about it? People who do binary-only drivers have a much better chance of not doing a derivative work when they only use non-EXPORT_GPL exports, and as a result not being in the wrong legally. OG. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Point of gpl-only modules (flame)
I know I'll be getting hell for this, I must be a masochist. Anyway, I've been trying to figure out what purpose the gpl-only code serves. What good comes out of disabling people from probing modules that do not have a gpl-compatible license? Of cause, I would love to see more hardware manufactures release either full specs, or GPL'd drivers, and I'm sure it will happen, in time. But until then, why are people wasting time writing code to inhibit those who do not agree with them on licensing? It seems pretty childish to try and force some license on people, imagine trying to install firefox on Windows Vista, an error-dialog box appears: "This application has been denied access to the Windows API as its license are compatible with the Microsoft Philosophy" ? Now, i don't want to waste clock cycles on executing code that serves no purpose but restraining me from using my $1500 gfx card as intended, so will me removing that crap from the source result in somebody trying to obfuscate it to a point where neither of us know what is what? Also, how about a list of PROS, explain to me whats so cool about it? - Jimmy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Point of gpl-only modules (flame)
I know I'll be getting hell for this, I must be a masochist. Anyway, I've been trying to figure out what purpose the gpl-only code serves. What good comes out of disabling people from probing modules that do not have a gpl-compatible license? Of cause, I would love to see more hardware manufactures release either full specs, or GPL'd drivers, and I'm sure it will happen, in time. But until then, why are people wasting time writing code to inhibit those who do not agree with them on licensing? It seems pretty childish to try and force some license on people, imagine trying to install firefox on Windows Vista, an error-dialog box appears: This application has been denied access to the Windows API as its license are compatible with the Microsoft Philosophy ? Now, i don't want to waste clock cycles on executing code that serves no purpose but restraining me from using my $1500 gfx card as intended, so will me removing that crap from the source result in somebody trying to obfuscate it to a point where neither of us know what is what? Also, how about a list of PROS, explain to me whats so cool about it? - Jimmy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Point of gpl-only modules (flame)
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 11:49:04PM +0200, Jimmy wrote: Also, how about a list of PROS, explain to me whats so cool about it? People who do binary-only drivers have a much better chance of not doing a derivative work when they only use non-EXPORT_GPL exports, and as a result not being in the wrong legally. OG. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Point of gpl-only modules (flame)
On Oct 2 2007 23:49, Jimmy wrote: Anyway, I've been trying to figure out what purpose the gpl-only code serves. What good comes out of disabling people from probing modules that do not have a gpl-compatible license? find /lib/modules/`uname -r` -iname '*.ko' | wc -l: 2021 Proprietary modules that I can think of: 5 to 10 It's not even 1/2 a !#$ percent. (Though knowing that many modules are for not-so-common hw.) It seems pretty childish to try and force some license on people, imagine trying to install firefox on Windows Vista, an error-dialog box appears: This application has been denied access to the Windows API as its license are compatible with the Microsoft Philosophy ? Not a kernel problem. (That said, MS would probably face yet another antitrust charge if it did that. Or better yet, people would just thankfully stop using it.) Now, i don't want to waste clock cycles on executing code that serves no purpose but restraining me from using my $1500 gfx card as intended, Perhaps you intended to buy a game console instead? That said, no one is restraining you. You can edit the kernel source and rip out all the GPL checks. On top, it's not like the ati or nvidia blob-ola would not load in today's kernel. 01:00 ichi:~ lsmod | grep nv nvidia 4717076 22 Oh yeah, my kernel (unpatched, btw) really tries to stop me hard from loading it. so will me removing that crap from the source result in somebody trying to obfuscate it to a point where neither of us know what is what? Also, how about a list of PROS, explain to me whats so cool about it? - Jimmy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Point of gpl-only modules (flame)
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:49:04 +0200 Jimmy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know I'll be getting hell for this, I must be a masochist. DO NOT FEED THE TROLL. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
