RE: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

RE: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

[Hua Zhong]

> WINE is a user process.  It does not run in kernel space, so we don't 
> care about it.  Since all the closed-source stuff, like 
> Office, runs in user space, it CANNOT corrupt the kernel (barring real 
> kernel bugs).
> 
> I think Linus needs to smack you down like he did with that guy who 
> couldn't understand the distinction between firmware and a 
> kernel driver.

I think he doesn't, because he can read what other said. I know what
distinction it is and I've been working on kernel for years since I was
still in school.

I'm not arguing about the taint issue, or any technical issue, as clearly
stated in my last paragraph. I am mearly responding to the questioning to
Linuxant's business model.

> As long as the kernel is protected, we are generally in favor of it.
>
> > Linuxant did a wrong thing by working around the warning 
> > message, but I don't think it's fair to accuse of their business 
> > because they allow binary drivers run on Linux.
> 
> The fact that binary drivers are "evil" does not reflect badly on 
> Linuxant, in my opinion.

It doesn't look like so to me.

RE: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Hua Zhong wrote:
> 
> I have not heard so much WINING about WINE. I even see kernel developers add
> more support in the kernel to support WINE. Why do people like to pick on
> closed-source drivers being run by a wrapper? I see nothing wrong with that.

What is so hard to understand about the problem with bugs?

All software has bugs. Binary modules just mean that those bugs are
 - FATAL to the system, including possibly being a huge security hole.
 - impossible to debug
 - impossible to fix

In contrast, wine was _written_ to do this emulation, so by definition any
"bugs" are in wine itself (although I suspect that wine people sometimes
would prefer it if Office came with sources ;).

> Linuxant did a wrong thing by working around the warning message, but I
> don't think it's fair to accuse of their business because they allow binary
> drivers run on Linux.

Nobody has sued them over copyright infringement. What they are doing is 
likely legal - APART from the fact that they lied about the license, which 
is not only horribly immoral, it's also likely illegal under the DMCA.

Note: to me, the immoral part is the big one. If you want to flaunt the
DMCA and take the risk of the feds coming after you as a matter of civil
disobedience, all the more power to you. Let's not be hypocritical and
claim to like the DMCA.

But let's not kid about this: adding that '\0' thing to try to make the
kernel believe it was GPL'd code is not ethical, and there is no way to
claim that it's needed, since the _only_ thing it suppresses are a few
messages saying that the kernel is tainted as a result. Which it IS.

So don't bother trying to stand up for Linuxant. What they did was WRONG,
and there are no excuses for it. And I hope that they have it fixed
already and we can hereby just forget about this discussion.

		Linus

RE: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

[Hua Zhong]

My last email on this topic. If it weren't Linus I would have stopped. :-)

> What is so hard to understand about the problem with bugs?
> 
> All software has bugs. Binary modules just mean that those bugs are
>  - FATAL to the system, including possibly being a huge security hole.
>  - impossible to debug
>  - impossible to fix

It's the user's choice to run binary modules on their systems, as long as
the "tainted" issue is not hidden (which I clearly said was wrong) so the
support burden is directed to the right company/person who will hopefully
fix those bugs, why should it concern kernel developers so much? Let the
user have a choice. A working computer which occasionally crashes is still
better to the user than a stable computer which doesn't do the job.

In this sense, it doesn't matter it's a bug in user space or kernel space,
or hard or easy to fix, as long as it doesn't cause much extra burden to the
community.

All I try to say is about the business model of supporting closed-source
drivers by a GPL'ed wrapper. It may not be perfect in an imperfect world,
but nothing to criticize on.

> So don't bother trying to stand up for Linuxant. What they 
> did was WRONG, and there are no excuses for it. And I hope 
> that they have it fixed already and we can hereby just forget 
> about this discussion.

You don't need to tell me why it was wrong, because I already said it was
wrong. :-) I'm not standing up for linuxant either - I am not their
customers and I hardly heard of this name before. I'm just standing up for a
generic issue (which is often silly).

And I agree we should stop this thread now.

> 		Linus
> 

Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

[Marc Boucher]

Like Hua said, this ought to be "my last email on this topic. If it 
weren't Linus I would have stopped. :-)"

On Apr 30, 2004, at 3:19 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Hua Zhong wrote:
>>
>> I have not heard so much WINING about WINE. I even see kernel 
>> developers add
>> more support in the kernel to support WINE. Why do people like to 
>> pick on
>> closed-source drivers being run by a wrapper? I see nothing wrong 
>> with that.
>
> What is so hard to understand about the problem with bugs?
>
> All software has bugs. Binary modules just mean that those bugs are
>  - FATAL to the system, including possibly being a huge security hole.
>  - impossible to debug
>  - impossible to fix

All bugs are possibly fatal, or huge security holes, regardless of 
whether they are in binary-only code or open-source.
All bugs can be debugged or fixed, it's a matter of how hard it is to 
do (generally easier with open-source) and *who* is responsible for 
doing it (i.e. supporting the modules).

>
> In contrast, wine was _written_ to do this emulation, so by definition 
> any
> "bugs" are in wine itself (although I suspect that wine people 
> sometimes
> would prefer it if Office came with sources ;).

The same can be said about DriverLoader.

>
>> Linuxant did a wrong thing by working around the warning message, but 
>> I
>> don't think it's fair to accuse of their business because they allow 
>> binary
>> drivers run on Linux.
>
> Nobody has sued them over copyright infringement. What they are doing 
> is
> likely legal - APART from the fact that they lied about the license, 
> which
> is not only horribly immoral, it's also likely illegal under the DMCA.

The purpose of the workaround is not to circumvent any protection, but 
to fix a real usability issue for systems in the field, which, as an 
expert you perhaps do not see, but users definitely massively felt and 
complained about.

>
> Note: to me, the immoral part is the big one. If you want to flaunt the
> DMCA and take the risk of the feds coming after you as a matter of 
> civil
> disobedience, all the more power to you. Let's not be hypocritical and
> claim to like the DMCA.

I don't see our actions as being immoral at all. But in retrospect, I 
admit that the issue should have been differently handled (i.e. by 
sending patches, and perhaps starting a discussion on the lkml before 
implementing a workaround).

> But let's not kid about this: adding that '\0' thing to try to make the
> kernel believe it was GPL'd code is not ethical, and there is no way to
> claim that it's needed, since the _only_ thing it suppresses are a few
> messages saying that the kernel is tainted as a result. Which it IS.

Most kernels are already potentially "tainted" by the use of 
proprietary binary-only BIOS code, use of non-standard custom patches, 
reliance on untrusted external data, etc.. This illustrates that the 
MODULE_LICENSE tainting concept is flawed, and needlessly 
scary/confusing for users.

>
> So don't bother trying to stand up for Linuxant.

I can understand that you do not really like what we are doing to 
provide alternative options so that people can use otherwise 
unsupported hardware.

> What they did was WRONG,
> and there are no excuses for it.

But the main justification for the regrettable \0 trick remains that 
the tainted messages are redundant, confusing, and do not convey key 
information (i.e. who is responsible for supporting the third-party 
module) to ordinary users.

> And I hope that they have it fixed
> already and we can hereby just forget about this discussion.

We are working on a new release, which will be on the website shortly.

And I hope that you will agree to deal with the root problem by 
incorporating some of the suggestions (or equivalent ones) that people 
have made to fix the messages.

> 		Linus
>
>

Regards
Marc

Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

[Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz]

On Friday 30 of April 2004 20:47, Timothy Miller wrote:
> Hua Zhong wrote:
> > Linuxant did a wrong thing by working around the warning message, but I
> > don't think it's fair to accuse of their business because they allow
> > binary drivers run on Linux.

IMHO open-source drivers are one of the biggest advantages of Linux.

Linuxant seems to be using double standards: we are all for open-source OS but
_our_ drivers have to remain proprietary (I don't care about reasons here).

Marc, I _appreciate_ all your hard-work on open-source projects and I can
understand reasons why Linuxant makes it's drivers but please, be honest. :)
I think that you agree that things like HSF drivers or DriverLoader
(because they are workarounds not the real solution) _may_ slow down creation
of real open-source drivers.

I also hope that this '\0' issue won't scare you from working with
community in the future.

Regards,
Bartlomiej

Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Marc Boucher wrote:
>
> > In contrast, wine was _written_ to do this emulation, so by definition 
> > any
> > "bugs" are in wine itself (although I suspect that wine people 
> > sometimes
> > would prefer it if Office came with sources ;).
> 
> The same can be said about DriverLoader.

.. but not abotu the kernel that it depends on.

In other words, if driverloader was a stand-alone project, you could do 
whatever the hell you wanted with it.

But it isn't a standalone project, is it? It depends on the kernel, and 
there is no question that driverloader is a derived work.

Which means that you had better follow the rules.

So stop yer whining. When you write your own operating system, and your 
driver doesn't have to depend on anybody elses code, then you can set the 
rules. As it is, the kernel requires modules to tell it their license, and 
if you lie to it, that is not only potentially violating the DMCA, it's 
also likely a crime under regular copyright laws (ie you are knowingly 
misrepresenting a license - in this case the license of the binary part, 
and that's not legal either).

> The purpose of the workaround is not to circumvent any protection, but 
> to fix a real usability issue for systems in the field, which, as an 
> expert you perhaps do not see, but users definitely massively felt and 
> complained about.

Oh, so it's ok to do something illegal, because it helps usability? And 
ethics take second place to "the user doesn't want to see that line in the 
logs"?

Sure, that's a good argument. NOT.

GET RID OF YOUR LYING LICENSE LINE!

		Linus

Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

[Stefan Smietanowski]

Hi.

> The purpose of the workaround is not to circumvent any protection, but 
> to fix a real usability issue for systems in the field, which, as an 
> expert you perhaps do not see, but users definitely massively felt and 
> complained about.

That's like saying that someone hates getting a speeding ticket from
those automatic cameras that are cropping up everywhere now.

He then promptly removes his license plate so he can't be tracked and
then he can continue to speed along.

Now - To the entity that is issuing tickets it appears that that
person is now a law abiding citizen and does not speed anymore when
in truth he removed the plate so it would appear that way.

The speeding ticket is printed message.

Yes, it might or should be changed to print it once or once
per $MODULE_VENDOR or license or whatever, but the issue remains.

It wasn't YOU that installed the speed camera nor set the speed
limits (ie created the tained flag and the code that prints a
message when such a module is inserted) but claiming that
"but it's only a workaround because I was getting so many tickets"
doesn't make it any better.

Yes, Linux is such an open system that a user can install a kernel
that doesn't print anything for tained kernels (remove speed cameras)
but that doesn't mean that YOU can do anything about it from the side
of the car (module).

Also note that neither the speed camera nor the kernel actually make
any limits on speeding (loading proprietary modules).

// Stefan

Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

[Marc Boucher]

On Apr 30, 2004, at 4:26 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Marc Boucher wrote:
>>
>>> In contrast, wine was _written_ to do this emulation, so by 
>>> definition
>>> any
>>> "bugs" are in wine itself (although I suspect that wine people
>>> sometimes
>>> would prefer it if Office came with sources ;).
>>
>> The same can be said about DriverLoader.
>
> .. but not abotu the kernel that it depends on.
>
> In other words, if driverloader was a stand-alone project, you could do
> whatever the hell you wanted with it.

To clarify this important point, driverloader is a standalone project, 
and structured similarly to the HSF driver (all os-specific code is 
open-source allowing it to be used with any kernel or even 
theoretically any other x86 operating system).

Because only one logical module is loaded, and a single set of tainted 
messages bearable, the \0 MODULE_LICENSE() workaround is unnecessary 
and not used in driverloader.

Marc

Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Marc Boucher wrote:
> >
> > In other words, if driverloader was a stand-alone project, you could do
> > whatever the hell you wanted with it.
> 
> To clarify this important point, driverloader is a standalone project, 
> and structured similarly to the HSF driver (all os-specific code is 
> open-source allowing it to be used with any kernel or even 
> theoretically any other x86 operating system).

The Linux-centric parts are absolutely NOT stand-alone, and one big part
of that Linux-centric stuff is that magic line that says MODULE_LICENSE().

In other words, you're a weasel.

			Linus

Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

[Sean Estabrooks]

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:39:01 -0400
Marc Boucher <marc@linuxant.com> wrote:

> To clarify this important point, driverloader is a standalone project, 
> and structured similarly to the HSF driver (all os-specific code is 
> open-source allowing it to be used with any kernel or even 
> theoretically any other x86 operating system).
> 
> Because only one logical module is loaded, and a single set of tainted 
> messages bearable, the \0 MODULE_LICENSE() workaround is unnecessary 
> and not used in driverloader.
> 

After 150+ messages not even one concept that's been mentioned has pierced
the fog of your self righteousness has it?   Please just try to respect
the people who bring you Linux.

Sean.

A compromise that could have been reached. Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

[Timothy Miller]

Something occurred to me...

It does take some time to get patches to propogate onto people's 
computers.  Linuxant has the problem that they have to be able to work 
in lots of different already-deployed kernels.

I get the impression that Linuxant attempts to load and try a large 
number of drivers in order to detect hardware.  While that isn't 
necessarily the best way to probe for devices, I can see why it would be 
unpleasant to have numerous "taint" messages print out in the general case.

The best solution to this would be both legal (in the sense of them 
being licensed to do this) and solve Linuxant's problem.  How to do this?


Linuxant could have posed this problem to LKML and gotten permission to 
do something "questionable", which is what I am going to suggest:

First:   Do the "GPL\0" thing with the permission of LKML members, 
conditioned on the next two steps.

Second:  Make the Linuxant loader program print out a message that 
explains to users that the kernel is really being tainted, even though 
it doesn't look that way, and also that same message needs to get into 
appropriate system logs.

Third:   Find some way to force on the "tainted" flag in the kernel 
after all the module load attempts have been finished.


I'm not declaring this to be THE solution   It might be crap.  But the 
Linux community does enjoy cooperating with people who are trying to do 
good things and need help.  An argument can be made that there is some 
benefit to what Linuxant does, and that argument is strong enough that 
enough people would probably agree to this sort of compromize.


In fact, in my opinion, if I were a major kernel contributor, I wouldn't 
mind the "questionable workaround" at all if the consequences of it were 
deal with by forcing the "tainting" flag on after the tainting flag had 
been defeated.

Make sense?

Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

[Marc Boucher]

On Apr 30, 2004, at 4:44 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> The Linux-centric parts are absolutely NOT stand-alone, and one big 
> part
> of that Linux-centric stuff is that magic line that says 
> MODULE_LICENSE().
>

are you claiming that anything that uses the MODULE_LICENSE() macro 
becomes a derived work of the Linux kernel subject to the GPL?

Marc

Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Marc Boucher wrote:
> 
> are you claiming that anything that uses the MODULE_LICENSE() macro 
> becomes a derived work of the Linux kernel subject to the GPL?

I'm claiming that you are wilfully misrepresenting the license of your 
code to another piece of code THAT YOU DON'T CONTROL.

I'm further claiming that this is unethical and quite possibly illegal.

How hard is that to understand? Remove that stupid lying line. Pronto.

How the _hell_ can you stand up for lying in public? Have you no shame?

		Linus

Re: A compromise that could have been reached. Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

[Marc Boucher]

Indeed. The driver in question contains 8 interdependent modules. What 
we were thinking of doing to settle the issue short-term in a fair way 
for both our users and kernel developers, is removing the \0 from the 
central one (hsfengine), causing the kernel to be properly tainted and 
one instance of the messages to be automatically printed when the 
driver is used.

Hopefully the community will view this as an acceptable compromise. 
Once patches have propagated onto people's computers, we will be happy 
to remove all \0's completely.

Marc

On Apr 30, 2004, at 4:47 PM, Timothy Miller wrote:

> Something occurred to me...
>
> It does take some time to get patches to propogate onto people's 
> computers.  Linuxant has the problem that they have to be able to work 
> in lots of different already-deployed kernels.
>
> I get the impression that Linuxant attempts to load and try a large 
> number of drivers in order to detect hardware.  While that isn't 
> necessarily the best way to probe for devices, I can see why it would 
> be unpleasant to have numerous "taint" messages print out in the 
> general case.
>
> The best solution to this would be both legal (in the sense of them 
> being licensed to do this) and solve Linuxant's problem.  How to do 
> this?
>
>
> Linuxant could have posed this problem to LKML and gotten permission 
> to do something "questionable", which is what I am going to suggest:
>
> First:   Do the "GPL\0" thing with the permission of LKML members, 
> conditioned on the next two steps.
>
> Second:  Make the Linuxant loader program print out a message that 
> explains to users that the kernel is really being tainted, even though 
> it doesn't look that way, and also that same message needs to get into 
> appropriate system logs.
>
> Third:   Find some way to force on the "tainted" flag in the kernel 
> after all the module load attempts have been finished.
>
>
> I'm not declaring this to be THE solution   It might be crap.  But the 
> Linux community does enjoy cooperating with people who are trying to 
> do good things and need help.  An argument can be made that there is 
> some benefit to what Linuxant does, and that argument is strong enough 
> that enough people would probably agree to this sort of compromize.
>
>
> In fact, in my opinion, if I were a major kernel contributor, I 
> wouldn't mind the "questionable workaround" at all if the consequences 
> of it were deal with by forcing the "tainting" flag on after the 
> tainting flag had been defeated.
>
> Make sense?
>

Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

[Timothy Miller]

Marc Boucher wrote:
> 
> 
> On Apr 30, 2004, at 4:44 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
>>
>> The Linux-centric parts are absolutely NOT stand-alone, and one big part
>> of that Linux-centric stuff is that magic line that says 
>> MODULE_LICENSE().
>>
> 
> are you claiming that anything that uses the MODULE_LICENSE() macro 
> becomes a derived work of the Linux kernel subject to the GPL?


Well, some people might argue that, but let's put that aside for the 
moment.  I think one of the things he's implying is that anything which 
says MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") (which is what your driver did) is required 
to actually BE under the GPL.


Technically, since the Linux kernel headers are under GPL, including 
them into your code does make your code a derived work.  However, people 
are allowed to slide on this in certain strict circumstances, especially 
when MODULE_LICENSE doesn't say the license is GPL.

Re: A compromise that could have been reached. Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

[Rik van Riel]

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Marc Boucher wrote:

> Hopefully the community will view this as an acceptable compromise. 
> Once patches have propagated onto people's computers, we will be happy 
> to remove all \0's completely.

I didn't see any patches.  Does that mean you plan to
continue your potential violation of copyright law
forever ?

-- 
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan

Re: A compromise that could have been reached. Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

[Timothy Miller]

Marc Boucher wrote:
> 
> Indeed. The driver in question contains 8 interdependent modules. What 
> we were thinking of doing to settle the issue short-term in a fair way 
> for both our users and kernel developers, is removing the \0 from the 
> central one (hsfengine), causing the kernel to be properly tainted and 
> one instance of the messages to be automatically printed when the driver 
> is used.
> 
> Hopefully the community will view this as an acceptable compromise. Once 
> patches have propagated onto people's computers, we will be happy to 
> remove all \0's completely.
> 

At this point, you're not going to get any slack.  If this is what you'd 
done to start with, you might have gotten away with it.  As it stands, 
you appear to be unwilling to comply with the rules, except as a last 
resort when you've been flamed for days.

I think what you need to do right now is do a lot of begging.  I agree 
that in principle, it's only technically necessary to have one of the 
modules taint the kernel.  But it's still "bad" to lie about the module 
license and should only be done after much scrutiny and discussion.

So if everyone who has a stake in this agrees to let you do it, then go 
ahead.  Otherwise, sorry Charley, but you're SOL.

Re: A compromise that could have been reached. Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

[Marc Boucher]

I had proposed this compromise in good faith to Rusty at the very 
beginning of the debate but have not received an answer about it from 
him yet.

Since it appears impossible to get formal "approval" from a "community" 
composed of very diverse elements (for better and for worse) we will 
probably implement this short-term solution to restore tainting.

Regards
Marc

On Apr 30, 2004, at 5:38 PM, Timothy Miller wrote:
>
> Marc Boucher wrote:
>> Indeed. The driver in question contains 8 interdependent modules. 
>> What we were thinking of doing to settle the issue short-term in a 
>> fair way for both our users and kernel developers, is removing the \0 
>> from the central one (hsfengine), causing the kernel to be properly 
>> tainted and one instance of the messages to be automatically printed 
>> when the driver is used.
>> Hopefully the community will view this as an acceptable compromise. 
>> Once patches have propagated onto people's computers, we will be 
>> happy to remove all \0's completely.
>
> At this point, you're not going to get any slack.  If this is what 
> you'd done to start with, you might have gotten away with it.  As it 
> stands, you appear to be unwilling to comply with the rules, except as 
> a last resort when you've been flamed for days.
>
> I think what you need to do right now is do a lot of begging.  I agree 
> that in principle, it's only technically necessary to have one of the 
> modules taint the kernel.  But it's still "bad" to lie about the 
> module license and should only be done after much scrutiny and 
> discussion.
>
> So if everyone who has a stake in this agrees to let you do it, then 
> go ahead.  Otherwise, sorry Charley, but you're SOL.
>

Allowing only "-g" compiled modules! (was: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license)

[Jan-Benedict Glaw]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1065 bytes --]

On Fri, 2004-04-30 12:37:26 -0700, Hua Zhong <hzhong@cisco.com>
wrote in message <00b201c42eea$916f6c40$ca41cb3f@amer.cisco.com>:

> user have a choice. A working computer which occasionally crashes is still
> better to the user than a stable computer which doesn't do the job.

WHAT!? I'm sorry, but to my eyes, an unstable computer is worth nothing.
If I can't somewhat trust my machine, I'll take paper and pencil...

However, I don't see a solution towards stopping companies from making
(partially) binary-only drivers.

Maybe we'd start to put more effort into disassemblers/re-assemblers and
code-generators from disassembly dumps.

Maybe we can use a simple solution: Only allow modules that contain full
debug info :)

MfG, JBG

-- 
   Jan-Benedict Glaw       jbglaw@lug-owl.de    . +49-172-7608481
   "Eine Freie Meinung in  einem Freien Kopf    | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg
    fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! |   im Irak!
   ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA));

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

[Jorge Bernal]

On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 04:11:29PM -0400, Marc Boucher wrote:
> 
> The purpose of the workaround is not to circumvent any protection, but 
> to fix a real usability issue for systems in the field, which, as an 
> expert you perhaps do not see, but users definitely massively felt and 
> complained about.
> 

You have argued this a lot of times during this thread and I want to say
smoenthing about that. I have used some binary-only modules: nvidia,
vmware and some time ago HSF drivers. When I installed the nvidia
propetary driver was the first time I saw the word 'tainted' and it
makes sense: I was at the console.

I mean that most of users work on X (except when installing X drivers
:)) and probably they will never see this "confusing" warnings.

When my system boots, it loads the nvidia and vmware modules and most of
time (I could say always) I don't notice that my kernel is tainted
(though I know) so I don't see the reason to hide the license.

I think it should be good for all to stop flaming and put some things in
order. You have lied about the license and it seems you want to keep
lying so -quoting Linus- it seems you don't have shame.

Cheers,
	Koke

-- 
"Sólo el éxito diferencia al genio del loco"

Blog: http://www.amedias.org/koke
Web Personal: http://sindominio.net/~koke/
JID: koke@zgzjabber.ath.cx

Re: A compromise that could have been reached. Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

[Tim Connors]

Timothy Miller <miller@techsource.com> said on Fri, 30 Apr 2004 17:38:25 -0400:
> 
> 
> Marc Boucher wrote:
> > 
> > Indeed. The driver in question contains 8 interdependent modules. What 
> > we were thinking of doing to settle the issue short-term in a fair way 
> > for both our users and kernel developers, is removing the \0 from the 
> > central one (hsfengine), causing the kernel to be properly tainted and 
> > one instance of the messages to be automatically printed when the driver 
> > is used.
> > 
> > Hopefully the community will view this as an acceptable compromise. Once 
> > patches have propagated onto people's computers, we will be happy to 
> > remove all \0's completely.
...
> I think what you need to do right now is do a lot of begging.  I agree 
> that in principle, it's only technically necessary to have one of the 
> modules taint the kernel.  But it's still "bad" to lie about the module 
> license and should only be done after much scrutiny and discussion.

What's wrong with the printk setting workaround? Simply write a number
to the appropriate file before you load the modules.

I just tried googling for the relevant post, but failed...

He doesn't need to wait for the patches to propogate. He can act on
his own scripts immediately in readiness for the next version.

Easy.

-- 
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
Modus Ponens in action:
- Nothing is better than world peace. 
- A turkey sandwich is better than nothing. 
  ==>  Ergo, a turkey sandwich is better than world peace. 

Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

[Martin J. Bligh]

> All bugs can be debugged or fixed, it's a matter of how hard it is 
> to do (generally easier with open-source) and *who* is responsible 
> for doing it (i.e. supporting the modules).

Yes, exactly. The tainted mechanism is there to tell us that it's not 
*our* problem to support it. And you deliberately screwed that up,
which is why everybody is pissed at you.

M.

Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

[Marc Boucher]

On May 1, 2004, at 1:07 AM, Martin J. Bligh wrote:

>> All bugs can be debugged or fixed, it's a matter of how hard it is
>> to do (generally easier with open-source) and *who* is responsible
>> for doing it (i.e. supporting the modules).
>
> Yes, exactly. The tainted mechanism is there to tell us that it's not
> *our* problem to support it. And you deliberately screwed that up,
> which is why everybody is pissed at you.

It was already screwed up, and causing unnecessary support burdens
both on the community ("help! what does tainted mean") and vendors.
This thread and previous ones have shown ample evidence of that.
Let's deal with the root problem and fix the messages, as Rik van Riel
has suggested.

Most third-party module suppliers have been confronted with the same 
issue
and forced to work around it (in other imperfect and sometimes clumsy 
ways).
One of them redirects the messages to a separate file and appends
the following notice:

 > ********************************************************************
 > * You can safely ignore the above message about tainting the kernel.
 > * It is completely political and means just that the maintainers of
 > * of modutils package dislike software that is not distributed under
 > * an open source license.
 > ********************************************************************

On Apr 30, 2004, at 10:36 PM, Tim Connors wrote:
>
> What's wrong with the printk setting workaround? Simply write a number
> to the appropriate file before you load the modules.
>
> I just tried googling for the relevant post, but failed...
>
> He doesn't need to wait for the patches to propogate. He can act on
> his own scripts immediately in readiness for the next version.
>
> Easy.

Not. We don't use a script to systematically load the modules,
because they are large and not always required, nor want to
interfere with the system's normal logging.

Manipulating printk settings or redirecting the superfluous
messages elsewhere are also ugly hacks, which can
potentially also divert/hide important messages.

Marc

Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

[Davide Libenzi]

On Sat, 1 May 2004, Marc Boucher wrote:

> One of them redirects the messages to a separate file and appends
> the following notice:
> 
>  > ********************************************************************
>  > * You can safely ignore the above message about tainting the kernel.
>  > * It is completely political and means just that the maintainers of
>  > * of modutils package dislike software that is not distributed under
>  > * an open source license.
>  > ********************************************************************

Right that you're there, you might want also to add something like:

*************************************************************************
* Do not even try to report your problems with the Linux kernel to software
* maintainers at linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org since they cannot do anything
* about modules they do not have the source of. Reports your problems at:
*
* LIST-OF-BINARY-MODULES-DROPPERS-EMAIL-ADDRESSES
*************************************************************************

#define MODULE_CONTACT(...)



- Davide

Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

[Zwane Mwaikambo]

On Sat, 1 May 2004, Marc Boucher wrote:

> Most third-party module suppliers have been confronted with the same
> issue
> and forced to work around it (in other imperfect and sometimes clumsy
> ways).
> One of them redirects the messages to a separate file and appends
> the following notice:
>
>  > ********************************************************************
>  > * You can safely ignore the above message about tainting the kernel.
>  > * It is completely political and means just that the maintainers of
>  > * of modutils package dislike software that is not distributed under
>  > * an open source license.
>  > ********************************************************************

What's the difference between that and the dialog box Microsoft Windows
gives when you try and install an unsigned or non WHQL driver? In fact
they make a much greater deal about it than our one printk.

	Zwane

Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

[Sean Estabrooks]

On Sat, 1 May 2004 15:12:18 -0400
Marc Boucher <marc@linuxant.com> wrote:

> It was already screwed up, and causing unnecessary support burdens
> both on the community ("help! what does tainted mean") and vendors.
> This thread and previous ones have shown ample evidence of that.

Tainting is working just like it is supposed to work.   The reduced
support burden for senior Linux maintainers has been a benefit.

> Let's deal with the root problem and fix the messages, as Rik van Riel
> has suggested.

The kernel maintainers will decide what's best for Linux.   They're the
ones responsible for overseeing Linux.    But if we're going to change
the message i'd prefer something along the lines of:

"Now loading a non GPL driver.   Please consider supporting vendors that
provide open source drivers for their hardware.  Your kernel will now be
marked as tainted, all this means is that you should send any support
requests to the author of this driver."

> Most third-party module suppliers have been confronted with the same 
> issue and forced to work around it (in other imperfect and sometimes
> clumsy ways). One of them redirects the messages to a separate file and
> appends the following notice:
> 
>  > ********************************************************************
>  > * You can safely ignore the above message about tainting the kernel.
>  > * It is completely political and means just that the maintainers of
>  > * of modutils package dislike software that is not distributed under
>  > * an open source license.
>  > ********************************************************************

Tough.   Why don't you understand that LINUX IS AN OPEN SOURCE
OPERATING SYSTEM?   Linux is about open source; accommodating
closed source modules is way way down the list of priorities.

> > What's wrong with the printk setting workaround? Simply write a number
> > to the appropriate file before you load the modules.
> >
> > I just tried googling for the relevant post, but failed...
> >
> > He doesn't need to wait for the patches to propogate. He can act on
> > his own scripts immediately in readiness for the next version.
> >
> > Easy.
> 
> Not. We don't use a script to systematically load the modules,
> because they are large and not always required, nor want to
> interfere with the system's normal logging.
>
> Manipulating printk settings or redirecting the superfluous
> messages elsewhere are also ugly hacks, which can
> potentially also divert/hide important messages.

Good.

Regards,
Sean.

Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Sat, 1 May 2004, Marc Boucher wrote:

> Let's deal with the root problem and fix the messages, as Rik van Riel
> has suggested.

Please do yourself and the rest of us a favor.  Stop waiting and _do_ submit
a patch yourself for precisely that root problem.

That's what you should have done in the first place instead of being lazy,
but it's not too late for Linuxant people to show they care about resolving
this issue, and about the community they rely upon, as much as they care
about their customers.


Nicolas

Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

[Martin J. Bligh]

>>> All bugs can be debugged or fixed, it's a matter of how hard it is
>>> to do (generally easier with open-source) and *who* is responsible
>>> for doing it (i.e. supporting the modules).
>> 
>> Yes, exactly. The tainted mechanism is there to tell us that it's not
>> *our* problem to support it. And you deliberately screwed that up,
>> which is why everybody is pissed at you.
> 
> It was already screwed up, and causing unnecessary support burdens
> both on the community ("help! what does tainted mean") and vendors.
> This thread and previous ones have shown ample evidence of that.
> Let's deal with the root problem and fix the messages, as Rik van Riel
> has suggested.
> 
> Most third-party module suppliers have been confronted with the same issue
> and forced to work around it (in other imperfect and sometimes clumsy ways).

Odd that none of them just submitted a patch to fix the "real problem" then.
Sorry, I don't believe that was your only intent.

> One of them redirects the messages to a separate file and appends
> the following notice:
>
>  > ********************************************************************
>  > * You can safely ignore the above message about tainting the kernel.
>  > * It is completely political and means just that the maintainers of
>  > * of modutils package dislike software that is not distributed under
>  > * an open source license.
>  > ********************************************************************

Which is bullshit - It's not political, it's a matter of support. Problems
that appeared to be VM issues, or other things, turned out to be binary
driver issues, which we can't fix, and is a total waste of our time. 
Whether you agree with what we chose to support or not is completely
immaterial - it's not your call.

M.

[PATCH] clarify message and give support contact for non-GPL modules

[Marc Boucher]

On Sat, May 01, 2004 at 03:47:15PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Sat, 1 May 2004, Marc Boucher wrote:
> 
> > Let's deal with the root problem and fix the messages, as Rik van Riel
> > has suggested.
> 
> Please do yourself and the rest of us a favor.  Stop waiting and _do_ submit
> a patch yourself for precisely that root problem.
> 
> That's what you should have done in the first place instead of being lazy,
> but it's not too late for Linuxant people to show they care about resolving
> this issue, and about the community they rely upon, as much as they care
> about their customers.

ok, please see tentative patch for 2.6 below, incorporating Rusty's change
to only emit the warning once, and Rik's suggestion to explicitly direct users
to the party responsible for support, if specified as
MODULE_AUTHOR("NAME <EMAIL>").

Constructive comments/improvements welcome.

Marc

-- 
Marc Boucher
Linuxant inc.

--- linux-2.6.6-rc3-bk3/kernel/module.c	2004-05-01 16:06:46.769778360 -0400
+++ linux-2.6.6-rc3-bk3-mb/kernel/module.c	2004-05-01 16:38:02.563614352 -0400
@@ -1125,15 +1125,18 @@
 		|| strcmp(license, "Dual MPL/GPL") == 0);
 }
 
-static void set_license(struct module *mod, const char *license)
+static void set_license(struct module *mod, const char *license, const char *author)
 {
 	if (!license)
 		license = "unspecified";
 
 	mod->license_gplok = license_is_gpl_compatible(license);
-	if (!mod->license_gplok) {
-		printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: module license '%s' taints kernel.\n",
-		       mod->name, license);
+	if (!mod->license_gplok && !(tainted & TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE)) {
+		printk(KERN_INFO "%s: module has non-GPL license (%s).\n", mod->name, license);
+		if(author)
+			printk(KERN_INFO "%s: for any support issues, please contact %s\n", mod->name, author);
+		else
+			printk(KERN_INFO "%s: the Linux kernel community cannot resolve problems you may encounter when using this module.\n", mod->name);
 		tainted |= TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE;
 	}
 }
@@ -1470,7 +1473,9 @@
 	module_unload_init(mod);
 
 	/* Set up license info based on the info section */
-	set_license(mod, get_modinfo(sechdrs, infoindex, "license"));
+	set_license(mod,
+		get_modinfo(sechdrs, infoindex, "license"),
+		get_modinfo(sechdrs, infoindex, "author"));
 
 	/* Fix up syms, so that st_value is a pointer to location. */
 	err = simplify_symbols(sechdrs, symindex, strtab, versindex, pcpuindex,

Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

[Marc Boucher]

On May 1, 2004, at 4:47 PM, Martin J. Bligh wrote:

>>>> All bugs can be debugged or fixed, it's a matter of how hard it is
>>>> to do (generally easier with open-source) and *who* is responsible
>>>> for doing it (i.e. supporting the modules).
>>>
>>> Yes, exactly. The tainted mechanism is there to tell us that it's not
>>> *our* problem to support it. And you deliberately screwed that up,
>>> which is why everybody is pissed at you.
>>
>> It was already screwed up, and causing unnecessary support burdens
>> both on the community ("help! what does tainted mean") and vendors.
>> This thread and previous ones have shown ample evidence of that.
>> Let's deal with the root problem and fix the messages, as Rik van Riel
>> has suggested.
>>
>> Most third-party module suppliers have been confronted with the same 
>> issue
>> and forced to work around it (in other imperfect and sometimes clumsy 
>> ways).
>
> Odd that none of them just submitted a patch to fix the "real problem" 
> then.
> Sorry, I don't believe that was your only intent.

So what do you think it was? I swear to god, there was no other intent 
nor purpose.

We have just submitted a patch to address the issue. Hopefully it (or 
something
similar) will make it in and the matter will become history.

Marc

--
Marc Boucher
Linuxant inc.

Re: [PATCH] clarify message and give support contact for non-GPL modules

[Sean Estabrooks]

On Sat, 1 May 2004 16:53:36 -0400
Marc Boucher <marc@linuxant.com> wrote:

> Constructive comments/improvements welcome.

I think the following patch is more respectful of the Linux license.  
It also explains to the user why their kernel is now tainted so they
won't be confused when they see "tainted" messages elsewhere.
Also it may encourage more open source drivers which you agree
are better Marc:

--- linux-2.6.6-rc3-bk3/kernel/module.c	2004-05-01 16:06:46.769778360 -0400
+++ linux-2.6.6-rc3-bk3-mb/kernel/module.c	2004-05-01 16:38:02.563614352 -0400
@@ -1125,15 +1125,19 @@
 		|| strcmp(license, "Dual MPL/GPL") == 0);
 }
 
-static void set_license(struct module *mod, const char *license)
+static void set_license(struct module *mod, const char *license, const char *author)
 {
 	if (!license)
 		license = "unspecified";
 
 	mod->license_gplok = license_is_gpl_compatible(license);
-	if (!mod->license_gplok) {
-		printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: module license '%s' taints kernel.\n",
-		       mod->name, license);
+	if (!mod->license_gplok && !(tainted & TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE)) {
+		printk(KERN_INFO "%s: module has non-GPL license (%s).\n", mod->name, license);
+		printk(KERN_INFO "%s: Please consider supporting vendors that provide open source drivers\n", mod->name);
+		if(author)
+			printk(KERN_INFO "%s: kernel now tainted, for all support contact: %s\n", mod->name, author);
+		else
+			printk(KERN_INFO "%s: kernel now tainted, for all support contact author of this driver\n", mod->name);
 		tainted |= TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE;
 	}
 }
@@ -1470,7 +1473,9 @@
 	module_unload_init(mod);
 
 	/* Set up license info based on the info section */
-	set_license(mod, get_modinfo(sechdrs, infoindex, "license"));
+	set_license(mod,
+		get_modinfo(sechdrs, infoindex, "license"),
+		get_modinfo(sechdrs, infoindex, "author"));
 
 	/* Fix up syms, so that st_value is a pointer to location. */
 	err = simplify_symbols(sechdrs, symindex, strtab, versindex, pcpuindex,

Re: [PATCH] clarify message and give support contact for non-GPL modules

[Marc Boucher]

Sean,

I think that your wording is problematic, because:

- A module with non-GPL license could be distributed in source form.
- Its author can also be an individual or organization, not necessarily 
a vendor.
- The word "tainted" is confusing and needlessly scary for average 
users.

Marc

On May 1, 2004, at 5:34 PM, Sean Estabrooks wrote:

> On Sat, 1 May 2004 16:53:36 -0400
> Marc Boucher <marc@linuxant.com> wrote:
>
>> Constructive comments/improvements welcome.
>
> I think the following patch is more respectful of the Linux license.
> It also explains to the user why their kernel is now tainted so they
> won't be confused when they see "tainted" messages elsewhere.
> Also it may encourage more open source drivers which you agree
> are better Marc:
>
> --- linux-2.6.6-rc3-bk3/kernel/module.c	2004-05-01 16:06:46.769778360 
> -0400
> +++ linux-2.6.6-rc3-bk3-mb/kernel/module.c	2004-05-01 
> 16:38:02.563614352 -0400
> @@ -1125,15 +1125,19 @@
>  		|| strcmp(license, "Dual MPL/GPL") == 0);
>  }
>
> -static void set_license(struct module *mod, const char *license)
> +static void set_license(struct module *mod, const char *license, 
> const char *author)
>  {
>  	if (!license)
>  		license = "unspecified";
>
>  	mod->license_gplok = license_is_gpl_compatible(license);
> -	if (!mod->license_gplok) {
> -		printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: module license '%s' taints kernel.\n",
> -		       mod->name, license);
> +	if (!mod->license_gplok && !(tainted & TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE)) {
> +		printk(KERN_INFO "%s: module has non-GPL license (%s).\n", 
> mod->name, license);
> +		printk(KERN_INFO "%s: Please consider supporting vendors that 
> provide open source drivers\n", mod->name);
> +		if(author)
> +			printk(KERN_INFO "%s: kernel now tainted, for all support contact: 
> %s\n", mod->name, author);
> +		else
> +			printk(KERN_INFO "%s: kernel now tainted, for all support contact 
> author of this driver\n", mod->name);
>  		tainted |= TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE;
>  	}
>  }
> @@ -1470,7 +1473,9 @@
>  	module_unload_init(mod);
>
>  	/* Set up license info based on the info section */
> -	set_license(mod, get_modinfo(sechdrs, infoindex, "license"));
> +	set_license(mod,
> +		get_modinfo(sechdrs, infoindex, "license"),
> +		get_modinfo(sechdrs, infoindex, "author"));
>
>  	/* Fix up syms, so that st_value is a pointer to location. */
>  	err = simplify_symbols(sechdrs, symindex, strtab, versindex, 
> pcpuindex,
>
>
>

Re: [PATCH] clarify message and give support contact for non-GPL modules

[Sean Estabrooks]

On Sat, 1 May 2004 17:48:14 -0400
Marc Boucher <marc@linuxant.com> wrote:

> Sean,
> 
> I think that your wording is problematic, because:
> 
> - A module with non-GPL license could be distributed in source form.

That's not a problem.   Feel free to add other checks to suppress this
message for other licenses.

> - Its author can also be an individual or organization, not necessarily 
> a vendor.

Please suggest a better word than vendor so I can update the patch.

> - The word "tainted" is confusing and needlessly scary for average 
> users.

The FACT is the kernel is TAINTED.  It's important that the user
understand why so that when they see TAINTED message in OOPS 
they are not confused.

Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

[Randy.Dunlap]

On Sat, 1 May 2004 15:33:19 -0400 Sean Estabrooks <seanlkml@rogers.com> wrote:

| On Sat, 1 May 2004 15:12:18 -0400
| Marc Boucher <marc@linuxant.com> wrote:
| 
| > It was already screwed up, and causing unnecessary support burdens
| > both on the community ("help! what does tainted mean") and vendors.
| > This thread and previous ones have shown ample evidence of that.
| 
| Tainting is working just like it is supposed to work.   The reduced
| support burden for senior Linux maintainers has been a benefit.
| 
| > Let's deal with the root problem and fix the messages, as Rik van Riel
| > has suggested.
| 
| The kernel maintainers will decide what's best for Linux.   They're the
| ones responsible for overseeing Linux.    But if we're going to change
| the message i'd prefer something along the lines of:
| 
| "Now loading a non GPL driver.   Please consider supporting vendors that
| provide open source drivers for their hardware.  Your kernel will now be
| marked as tainted, all this means is that you should send any support
| requests to the author of this driver."

I agree, this is better than the Aunt Tillie message.
(Second sentence could be omitted.  I agree with it,
but it's not in the right setting IMO.)

[snip]

| > > What's wrong with the printk setting workaround? Simply write a number
| > > to the appropriate file before you load the modules.
| > >
| > > I just tried googling for the relevant post, but failed...
| > >
| > > He doesn't need to wait for the patches to propogate. He can act on
| > > his own scripts immediately in readiness for the next version.
| > >
| > > Easy.
| > 
| > Not. We don't use a script to systematically load the modules,
| > because they are large and not always required, nor want to
| > interfere with the system's normal logging.
| >
| > Manipulating printk settings or redirecting the superfluous
| > messages elsewhere are also ugly hacks, which can
| > potentially also divert/hide important messages.

So why is the tainted message to be different?

--
~Randy

Re: [PATCH] clarify message and give support contact for non-GPL modules

[Sean Estabrooks]

On Sat, 1 May 2004 17:48:14 -0400
Marc Boucher <marc@linuxant.com> wrote:

> Sean,
> 
> I think that your wording is problematic, because:
> 
> - A module with non-GPL license could be distributed in source form.
> - Its author can also be an individual or organization, not necessarily 
> a vendor.

Patch below attempts to address these concerns.

> - The word "tainted" is confusing and needlessly scary for average 
> users.
> 

Please stop your political agenda of subverting the open source nature of
Linux.   The average user SHOULD find it a scary to run modules
that don't conform to her choice of  OPEN SOURCE OPERATING SYSTEM.    
If the average user wanted to run closed source code she would have picked 
a closed source operating system right?  Lets not let closed source code sneak 
in without putting up big red flags for the user.   Lets make sure that the
USER IS NOT CONFUSED about the nature of the module they're loading.


--- linux-2.6.6-rc3-bk3/kernel/module.c	2004-05-01 16:06:46.769778360 -0400
+++ linux-2.6.6-rc3-bk3-mb/kernel/module.c	2004-05-01 16:38:02.563614352 -0400
@@ -1125,15 +1125,19 @@
 		|| strcmp(license, "Dual MPL/GPL") == 0);
 }
 
-static void set_license(struct module *mod, const char *license)
+static void set_license(struct module *mod, const char *license, const char *author)
 {
 	if (!license)
 		license = "unspecified";
 
 	mod->license_gplok = license_is_gpl_compatible(license);
-	if (!mod->license_gplok) {
-		printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: module license '%s' taints kernel.\n",
-		       mod->name, license);
+	if (!mod->license_gplok && !(tainted & TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE)) {
+		printk(KERN_INFO "%s: module has non-GPL license (%s) kernel is now tainted.\n", mod->name, license);
+		printk(KERN_INFO "%s: Please consider supporting those who provide GPL licensed drivers\n", mod->name);
+		if(author)
+			printk(KERN_INFO "%s: tainted kernel means all support must come from: %s\n", mod->name, author);
+		else
+			printk(KERN_INFO "%s: tainted kernel means all support must come from driver author\n", mod->name);
 		tainted |= TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE;
 	}
 }
@@ -1470,7 +1473,9 @@
 	module_unload_init(mod);
 
 	/* Set up license info based on the info section */
-	set_license(mod, get_modinfo(sechdrs, infoindex, "license"));
+	set_license(mod,
+		get_modinfo(sechdrs, infoindex, "license"),
+		get_modinfo(sechdrs, infoindex, "author"));
 
 	/* Fix up syms, so that st_value is a pointer to location. */
 	err = simplify_symbols(sechdrs, symindex, strtab, versindex, pcpuindex,

Re: [PATCH] clarify message and give support contact for non-GPL modules

[Linus Torvalds]

On Sat, 1 May 2004, Marc Boucher wrote:
> 
> I think that your wording is problematic, because:

No. 

You seem to believe that you can get something for nothing.

Wrong.

You offer nothing to the open-source community, you get nothing back. That 
means very much that people don't support what you're doing, and you 
should realize that as far as the rest of the kernel is concerned, you 
ARE tainting it. 

The GPL is about a symbiotic relationship, where people help each other. 
In contrast, a binary module is a parasite - giving nothing back to the 
community. 

So live with that fact. Don't try to make it look like anything else.

		Linus

Re: [PATCH] clarify message and give support contact for non-GPL modules

[Marc Boucher]

On May 1, 2004, at 6:22 PM, Sean Estabrooks wrote:

>
>> - The word "tainted" is confusing and needlessly scary for average
>> users.
>>
>
> Please stop your political agenda of subverting the open source nature 
> of
> Linux.   The average user SHOULD find it a scary to run modules
> that don't conform to her choice of  OPEN SOURCE OPERATING SYSTEM.
> If the average user wanted to run closed source code she would have 
> picked
> a closed source operating system right?  Lets not let closed source 
> code sneak
> in without putting up big red flags for the user.   Lets make sure 
> that the
> USER IS NOT CONFUSED about the nature of the module they're loading.

Everyone has an agenda.

Ours is to find reasonable compromise between corporate and community 
interests so that Linux users are able to use widespread hardware for 
which open-source drivers are otherwise not available or not adequate. 
There are several types of devices, like softmodems, for which there is 
currently no other alternative method. We believe that this is a 
legitimate business, and beneficial to the linux community. Our goal is 
not to harm open-source, to the contrary, help it spread by removing 
some of the obstacles. Likewise, we help vendors bring their technology 
to Linux. We encourage them to fully open-source it when possible and 
economically feasible (like in the case of Conexant's riptide driver or 
ethernet chipsets for which we have obtained and shared full source 
with the community). Otherwise, we try deliver mixed-binary/source 
drivers in the most convenient form for users.

Regards
Marc

Re: [PATCH] clarify message and give support contact for non-GPL modules

[viro]

On Sat, May 01, 2004 at 06:53:55PM -0400, Marc Boucher wrote:
 
> Everyone has an agenda.

Care to offer proof or apologies?

Re: [PATCH] clarify message and give support contact for non-GPL modules

[Marc Boucher]

Linus,

As  previously mentioned, I have offered many patches and a lot of 
source to the community throughout the last 15 years. Either personally 
or via Linuxant, under various licenses (including the GPL) depending 
on the constraints imposed by each situation, and continue doing so. In 
the workaround case, we should have admittedly sent a patch earlier 
instead of putting in the \0 and I sincerely apologized for that.

The modules in question are not binary-only, but mixed source/binary. 
With the submitted patch, we are also offering to take as much support 
burden off the community by clarifying the messages to explicitly 
direct users to where they should go for help when using third-party 
modules.

With all due respect, your claims that we are offering nothing / not 
giving back are not factual and you should not take position based on 
either incorrect information or a very narrow / alarmist interpretation 
of what we are doing.

Regards
Marc

On May 1, 2004, at 6:48 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Sat, 1 May 2004, Marc Boucher wrote:
>>
>> I think that your wording is problematic, because:
>
> No.
>
> You seem to believe that you can get something for nothing.
>
> Wrong.
>
> You offer nothing to the open-source community, you get nothing back. 
> That
> means very much that people don't support what you're doing, and you
> should realize that as far as the rest of the kernel is concerned, you
> ARE tainting it.
>
> The GPL is about a symbiotic relationship, where people help each 
> other.
> In contrast, a binary module is a parasite - giving nothing back to the
> community.
>
> So live with that fact. Don't try to make it look like anything else.
>
> 		Linus
>

Re: [PATCH] clarify message and give support contact for non-GPL modules

[Linus Torvalds]

On Sat, 1 May 2004, Marc Boucher wrote:
> 
> As  previously mentioned, I have offered many patches and a lot of 
> source to the community throughout the last 15 years. Either personally 
> or via Linuxant, under various licenses (including the GPL) depending 
> on the constraints imposed by each situation, and continue doing so.

Marc, this is not anything person about you.

Think of it this way: what if _I_ were to make a binary-only module, and 
I'd claim that because I've given a lot to Linux, that binary-only module 
would be somehow ok, because while that module itself doesn't help other 
developers, I've done so using other means?

Would that make sense? Hell no. That would be equally wrong as if any 
all-binary-never-released-source person would do it.

So I'm not claiming that _you_ don't give anything back. It's purely about 
the module, which is not giving anything back to developers, and as such 
you shouldn't expect us to respect it.

> The modules in question are not binary-only, but mixed source/binary. 
> With the submitted patch, we are also offering to take as much support 
> burden off the community by clarifying the messages to explicitly 
> direct users to where they should go for help when using third-party 
> modules.

Yes, I think that patch in general makes sense. But I literally _do_ want 
people to be alarmed about tainting, because it's a DAMN BIG issue. 
Suddenly you go from a system that is openly supported by a lot of 
individuals and a number of companies, to one that is not. It's literally 
the difference between "open" and "proprietary", and that is an IMPORTANT 
difference. 

So I don't see how you can really try to minimize that HUGE difference, 
without effectively saying that you don't respect the work and the ethics 
that have gone into Linux in the first place.

See what I'm saying? A proprietary module is more a fundamental issue than
you seem to give it credit for being, and users should be told in big 
blinking neon letters about it.

			Linus

Re: [PATCH] clarify message and give support contact for non-GPL modules

[Marc Boucher]

On May 1, 2004, at 8:22 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> So I'm not claiming that _you_ don't give anything back. It's purely 
> about
> the module, which is not giving anything back to developers, and as 
> such
> you shouldn't expect us to respect it.

The HSF modules give back what they can right now, which is all 
operating system source, in an attempt to strike a reasonable 
compromise.

>
>> The modules in question are not binary-only, but mixed source/binary.
>> With the submitted patch, we are also offering to take as much support
>> burden off the community by clarifying the messages to explicitly
>> direct users to where they should go for help when using third-party
>> modules.
>
> Yes, I think that patch in general makes sense.

ok

> But I literally _do_ want
> people to be alarmed about tainting, because it's a DAMN BIG issue.
> Suddenly you go from a system that is openly supported by a lot of
> individuals and a number of companies, to one that is not. It's 
> literally
> the difference between "open" and "proprietary", and that is an 
> IMPORTANT
> difference.

Understood. So perhaps we should call it "open" and "proprietary" which 
are clear, well known words. "tainted" is honestly confusing/hard to 
understand for many ordinary users, especially international/non-native 
speakers who do not encounter the word that often (thankfully ;-).

>
> So I don't see how you can really try to minimize that HUGE difference,
> without effectively saying that you don't respect the work and the 
> ethics
> that have gone into Linux in the first place.
>
> See what I'm saying? A proprietary module is more a fundamental issue 
> than
> you seem to give it credit for being, and users should be told in big
> blinking neon letters about it.

Yes, I see what you are saying and agree that the user should be told 
*once* about the proprietary module, but I don't know how you will 
manage to make it look like blinking neon from within the kernel ;-)

Marc

>
> 			Linus
>

Re: [PATCH] clarify message and give support contact for non-GPL modules

[Xavier Bestel]

On Sun, 2004-05-02 at 01:10, viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk
wrote:
> On Sat, May 01, 2004 at 06:53:55PM -0400, Marc Boucher wrote:
>  
> > Everyone has an agenda.
> 
> Care to offer proof or apologies?

Well, he vehemently contradicted himself just before:

> > I swear to god, there was no other intent nor purpose.

You could take that as a proof someone's got no agenda :)

	Xav

Re: [PATCH] clarify message and give support contact for non-GPL modules

[Sean Estabrooks]

On Sat, 1 May 2004 21:02:20 -0400
Marc Boucher <marc@linuxant.com> wrote:

> Understood. So perhaps we should call it "open" and "proprietary" which 
> are clear, well known words. "tainted" is honestly confusing/hard to 
> understand for many ordinary users, especially international/non-native 
> speakers who do not encounter the word that often (thankfully ;-).

No.  It's tainted.  And hopefully if the user is concerned or confused about this
word they will educate themself on the issues involved.    They might even
then support hardware companies that support open source development.
Nobody is forcing anything on them, and the module will still load and run.

Linux is an open source operating system.  There is nothing wrong with
promoting and protecting the code and license.

I've been looking at the latest version of the patch and thinking that it is really
wrong for any message to be displayed only once.   If the user is unfortunate 
enough to be loading two or more closed-source modules, the second
module should not be hidden by the first.   The author of the second module
should not have their name hidden just because another module was loaded
first.

So here is another attempt at the patch.   I think it addresses everything
that has been criticized.  It  makes sure the author of all non-GPL modules 
are shown and returns the message to be a warning instead of info:

--- linux-2.6.6-rc3-bk3/kernel/module.c	2004-05-01 16:06:46.769778360 -0400
+++ linux-2.6.6-rc3-bk3-mb/kernel/module.c	2004-05-01 16:38:02.563614352 -0400
@@ -1125,15 +1125,19 @@
 		|| strcmp(license, "Dual MPL/GPL") == 0);
 }
 
-static void set_license(struct module *mod, const char *license)
+static void set_license(struct module *mod, const char *license, const char *author)
 {
 	if (!license)
 		license = "unspecified";
 
 	mod->license_gplok = license_is_gpl_compatible(license);
-	if (!mod->license_gplok) {
-		printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: module license '%s' taints kernel.\n",
-		       mod->name, license);
+	if (!mod->license_gplok) {
+		printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: module has non-GPL license (%s) **KERNEL IS NOW TAINTED**.\n", mod->name, license);
+		printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: Please consider supporting those who provide GPL licensed drivers\n", mod->name);
+		if(author)
+			printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: Tainted kernel means support is only available from: %s\n", mod->name, author);
+		else
+			printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: Tainted kernel means support is only available from the author of this driver\n", mod->name);
 		tainted |= TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE;
 	}
 }
@@ -1470,7 +1473,9 @@
 	module_unload_init(mod);
 
 	/* Set up license info based on the info section */
-	set_license(mod, get_modinfo(sechdrs, infoindex, "license"));
+	set_license(mod,
+		get_modinfo(sechdrs, infoindex, "license"),
+		get_modinfo(sechdrs, infoindex, "author"));
 
 	/* Fix up syms, so that st_value is a pointer to location. */
 	err = simplify_symbols(sechdrs, symindex, strtab, versindex, pcpuindex,

Re: [PATCH] clarify message and give support contact for non-GPL modules

[Paul Rolland]

Hello,

I'm definitely no native English speaker, but I wanted to give my pov
on this topic...

> > Understood. So perhaps we should call it "open" and 
> "proprietary" which 
> > are clear, well known words. "tainted" is honestly 
> confusing/hard to 
> > understand for many ordinary users, especially 
> international/non-native 
> > speakers who do not encounter the word that often (thankfully ;-).
> 
> No.  It's tainted.  And hopefully if the user is concerned or 

Agreed. Once you have loaded such a module, your kernel is really
"tainted" by something that cannot really be controlled.
Proprietary is too much neutral and doesn't reflect what you are
now running : some piece of code which may by bloated without anyone
being able to control it.

> Linux is an open source operating system.  There is nothing wrong with
> promoting and protecting the code and license.
Correct.
 
> I've been looking at the latest version of the patch and 
> thinking that it is really
> wrong for any message to be displayed only once.   If the 
> user is unfortunate 
> enough to be loading two or more closed-source modules, the second
> module should not be hidden by the first.   The author of the 
> second module
> should not have their name hidden just because another module 
> was loaded first.

Agreed too.

This patch should make its way in the kernel, so that people are
aware they are using closed-source code.

I simply hope that some "vendors" will not alter kernel code before
building to remove such a warning if they include closed source
module in their distro.

Regards,
Paul

Paul Rolland, rol(at)as2917.net
ex-AS2917 Network administrator and Peering Coordinator

--

Please no HTML, I'm not a browser - Pas d'HTML, je ne suis pas un navigateur

"Some people dream of success... while others wake up and work hard at it" 

Re: [PATCH] clarify message and give support contact for non-GPL modules

[Marc Boucher]

On May 2, 2004, at 9:05 AM, Paul Rolland wrote:
>
> Agreed. Once you have loaded such a module, your kernel is really
> "tainted" by something that cannot really be controlled.
> Proprietary is too much neutral and doesn't reflect what you are
> now running : some piece of code which may by bloated without anyone
> being able to control it.

There will always be things in life that cannot be controlled. The 
kernel already depends on (by being called by, or itself calling) 
uncontrolled proprietary code in many environments without telling 
users about it. Informing people about this is perfectly ok,  
unnecessarily scaring or confusing them is not.

> I simply hope that some "vendors" will not alter kernel code before
> building to remove such a warning if they include closed source
> module in their distro.

Very good point. You can make things as negative-sounding, politically 
hostile as you want, but Linux distribution vendors would be perfectly 
free under the GPL to modify the kernel to remove or attenuate 
exaggerated messages and any other hostile measures if necessary.

If the messages are reasonable and clear, no-one will want/try to 
remove or avoid them, and people will be properly informed.

Marc

Re: [PATCH] clarify message and give support contact for non-GPL modules

[Sean Estabrooks]

On Sun, 2 May 2004 11:35:37 -0400
Marc Boucher <marc@linuxant.com> wrote:

> There will always be things in life that cannot be controlled. The 
> kernel already depends on (by being called by, or itself calling) 
> uncontrolled proprietary code in many environments without telling 
> users about it. Informing people about this is perfectly ok,  
> unnecessarily scaring or confusing them is not.

Agreed.

> Very good point. You can make things as negative-sounding, politically 
> hostile as you want, but Linux distribution vendors would be perfectly 
> free under the GPL to modify the kernel to remove or attenuate 
> exaggerated messages and any other hostile measures if necessary.

Yes.  You're right.

> If the messages are reasonable and clear, no-one will want/try to 
> remove or avoid them, and people will be properly informed.

That is what the latest patch attempts to do while still making sure 
that users are not fooled into thinking they're running an open 
source operating system.

Cheers,
Sean

Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

[Horst von Brand]

Marc Boucher <marc@linuxant.com> said:
> On May 1, 2004, at 1:07 AM, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> 
> >> All bugs can be debugged or fixed, it's a matter of how hard it is
> >> to do (generally easier with open-source) and *who* is responsible
> >> for doing it (i.e. supporting the modules).
> >
> > Yes, exactly. The tainted mechanism is there to tell us that it's not
> > *our* problem to support it. And you deliberately screwed that up,
> > which is why everybody is pissed at you.
> 
> It was already screwed up, and causing unnecessary support burdens
> both on the community ("help! what does tainted mean")

A minor annoyance, no head hacker did ever respond to that on LKML.

>                                                        and vendors.

... got what was comming to them. A-OK.

> This thread and previous ones have shown ample evidence of that.

Of your stubborness, clearly.

> Let's deal with the root problem and fix the messages, as Rik van Riel
> has suggested.

Your help is welcome.
-- 
Dr. Horst H. von Brand                   User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica                     Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria              +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile                Fax:  +56 32 797513

Re: [PATCH] clarify message and give support contact for non-GPL modules

[Timothy Miller]

viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk wrote:
> On Sat, May 01, 2004 at 06:53:55PM -0400, Marc Boucher wrote:
>  
> 
>>Everyone has an agenda.
> 
> 
> Care to offer proof or apologies?


My agenda is to have fun while advancing science and intellectual commons.

Re: [PATCH] clarify message and give support contact for non-GPL modules

[Timothy Miller]

Marc Boucher wrote:
> 
> Linus,
> 
> As  previously mentioned, I have offered many patches and a lot of 
> source to the community throughout the last 15 years. Either personally 
> or via Linuxant, under various licenses (including the GPL) depending on 
> the constraints imposed by each situation, and continue doing so. In the 
> workaround case, we should have admittedly sent a patch earlier instead 
> of putting in the \0 and I sincerely apologized for that.
> 
> The modules in question are not binary-only, but mixed source/binary. 
> With the submitted patch, we are also offering to take as much support 
> burden off the community by clarifying the messages to explicitly direct 
> users to where they should go for help when using third-party modules.
> 
> With all due respect, your claims that we are offering nothing / not 
> giving back are not factual and you should not take position based on 
> either incorrect information or a very narrow / alarmist interpretation 
> of what we are doing.
> 
> Regards
> Marc
> 


Marc,

Everything you say betrays the fact that the Free Software mentality is 
not a consideration in your thinking.  You clearly think it is, but it 
is clearly not.  This argument you're speaking one language, and you're 
speaking another.  Before you can get along with us, you have to learn 
to think like us.

Until you grok the Free Software mentality, you will continue to get flamed.