Binary only module overview

Binary only module overview

[Arjan van de Ven]

Hi,

I'm composing a list of all existing binary only modules, 
and I got to a list of 26 different modules; I undoubtedly forgot a few, 
so I hereby request feedback from people who know about modules I
left out, so that I can complete the list. (I do not really care about
modules that once existed for 2.0 or earlier and no longer exist for all
intents and purposes)

Greetings,
  Arjan van de Ven


Hardware drivers
----------------
4-Front		- soundcard drivers
Adaptec		- Fiberchannel cards
Agilent		- Fiberchannel cards
aureal		- driver for soundcard
Conexant	- winmodem driver
Emulex		- Fiberchannel cards
Highpoint	- lowlevel IDE driver + software raid
IBM		- All hardware networkdrivers for S/390
Lucent		- driver for winmodem
Motorola	- driver for winmodem
M-Systems	- flash chips
NVidia		- 3D driver for their hardware 
Olicom		- tokenring networkcard
PCTel		- winmodem driver
Philips		- webcam driver
Promise		- lowlevel IDE driver + software raid
Sigma designs	- driver for soundcard

Highlevel drivers
-----------------
Cisco		- IPSEC
Hewlet Packard	- High level security modules (LSM)
Intel		- IPSEC 
Netraverse	- Win4lin
SGI		- XFS cluster extensions
		- High level security modules (LSM)
Sistina		- GFS and cluster extensions for LVM
Veritas		- Filesystem and Software RAID clusterextensions
Wirex		- High level security modules (LSM)

Re: Binary only module overview

[Rasmus Bøg Hansen]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Arjan van de Ven wrote:

> I'm composing a list of all existing binary only modules, 
> and I got to a list of 26 different modules; I undoubtedly forgot a few, 
> so I hereby request feedback from people who know about modules I
> left out, so that I can complete the list. (I do not really care about
> modules that once existed for 2.0 or earlier and no longer exist for all
> intents and purposes)

IIRC, vmware includes one or more kernel modules.

Rasmus

-- 
-- [ Rasmus 'Møffe' Bøg Hansen ] ---------------------------------------
ATA100 is another testimony to the fact that pigs can be
made to fly given sufficient thrust (to borrow an RFC)
                                               -Alan Cox
--------------------------------- [ moffe at amagerkollegiet dot dk ] --

Re: Binary only module overview

[Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Rasmus Bøg Hansen wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > I'm composing a list of all existing binary only modules,
> > and I got to a list of 26 different modules; I undoubtedly forgot a few,
> > so I hereby request feedback from people who know about modules I
> > left out, so that I can complete the list. (I do not really care about
> > modules that once existed for 2.0 or earlier and no longer exist for all
> > intents and purposes)
>
> IIRC, vmware includes one or more kernel modules.

Yes, but they do provide source, so they lie in a grey area.

-- 
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams  <ignacio@openservices.net>

Re: Binary only module overview

[Andreas Steinmetz]

> IIRC, vmware includes one or more kernel modules.

They come as tarballs, complete as source, in addition to some precompiled
versions.



Andreas Steinmetz
D.O.M. Datenverarbeitung GmbH

Re: Binary only module overview

[Anders Peter Fugmann]

Rasmus Bøg Hansen wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 
> 
>>I'm composing a list of all existing binary only modules, 
>>and I got to a list of 26 different modules; I undoubtedly forgot a few, 
>>so I hereby request feedback from people who know about modules I
>>left out, so that I can complete the list. (I do not really care about
>>modules that once existed for 2.0 or earlier and no longer exist for all
>>intents and purposes)
>>
> 
> IIRC, vmware includes one or more kernel modules.
> 
> Rasmus
> 
> 
Yes, but the modules are not binary-only. 

The sourcecode is in the package, although it is not GPL.


Regards
Anders Fugman

Re: Binary only module overview

[Dave McCracken]

--On Monday, September 24, 2001 19:08:27 +0200 Anders Peter Fugmann 
<afu@fugmann.dhs.org> wrote:

>> IIRC, vmware includes one or more kernel modules.
>>
>> Rasmus
>>
> Yes, but the modules are not binary-only.
> The sourcecode is in the package, although it is not GPL.

I believe they only provide source for an interface layer that can be 
compiled against a specific version of the kernel.  I think the core 
drivers are binary only.

Dave McCracken

======================================================================
Dave McCracken          IBM Linux Base Kernel Team      1-512-838-3059
dmc@austin.ibm.com                                      T/L   678-3059

Re: Binary only module overview

[Alan Cox]

> IIRC, vmware includes one or more kernel modules.

Their kernel modules are GPL, although they let other stuff do icky things

Re: Binary only module overview

[Alan Cox]

> IBM		- All hardware networkdrivers for S/390

> Philips		- webcam driver
Compression for - the driver itself is free, and is usable without

> Sigma designs	- driver for soundcard
Mpeg card

Intel btw also have a binary only winmodem driver (HaM)

Motorola SM56 winmodem

Re: Binary only module overview

[Kai Germaschewski]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Arjan van de Ven wrote:

> Hardware drivers
> ----------------
AVM	- CAPI drivers for their passive ISDN cards
          (Fritz!Classic, Fritz!PCI, Fritz!PnP, Fritz!PCMCIA,
           Fritz!USB)
          For most of the hardware open source drivers exist as well,
          lacking some functionality, like e.g. softfax

--Kai

Re: Binary only module overview

[Rick Haines]

On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 12:40:44PM -0400, Arjan van de Ven wrote:

> Sigma designs	- driver for soundcard

That's their NetStream 2000 DVD (mpeg/ac3) decoder.
There are reverse engineered (GPL) drivers for the Hollywood Plus.

As a side note, there are currently 4 misc minor numbers allocated to
the em8300 drivers (according to Documentation/devices.txt).  That's
fine for one card but the driver support up to 4 cards so we'd need 16
devices in that case.  Currently we're using major number 121.  Does
anyone have suggestions for moving over to official device numbers?

-- 
Rick (rick@kuroyi.net)
http://dxr3.sourceforge.net

I think the slogan of the fansubbers puts
it best: "Cheaper than crack, and lots more fun."

Re: Binary only module overview

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 12:40:44PM -0400, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> Highlevel drivers
> -----------------
> Hewlet Packard	- High level security modules (LSM)
> SGI 		- High level security modules (LSM)
> Wirex		- High level security modules (LSM)

For those interested in the current LSM licensing issues, feel free to
join the discussion on the linux-security-module-list:
	http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module

The thread can be read online starting at:
	http://mail.wirex.com/pipermail/linux-security-module/2001-September/thread.html#2017
with the title:
	GPL only usage of security.h

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: Binary only module overview

[Casey Schaufler]

Greg KH wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 12:40:44PM -0400, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > Highlevel drivers
> ...
> > SGI           - High level security modules (LSM)

License terms and release scheme for this work
have not been finalized. 

-- 

Casey Schaufler				Manager, Trust Technology, SGI
casey@sgi.com				voice: 650.933.1634
casey_p@pager.sgi.com			Pager: 888.220.0607

Re: Binary only module overview

[Alan Cox]

> > > SGI           - High level security modules (LSM)
> 
> License terms and release scheme for this work
> have not been finalized. 

But from your comments on the LSM list we can guess

Re: Binary only module overview

[Casey Schaufler]

Alan Cox wrote:
> 
> > > > SGI           - High level security modules (LSM)
> >
> > License terms and release scheme for this work
> > have not been finalized.
> 
> But from your comments on the LSM list we can guess

Sure you can guess. That's all you'll be doing though.
As a representitive of a corporate entity it is important
that I not make promises that I can't keep. I would like
to provide all facilities under GPL or more liberal terms.
We have to deal with potential legal encumberances, and
that's a fact of corporate life. I can say that I want
to use GPL, that I plan to use GPL (which is true) but
I am required to provide notice that I may not be able
for legal, copywrite, or corporate poliy reasons to
commit to doing so. This is one of the disadvantages of
being a wage slave.

-- 

Casey Schaufler				Manager, Trust Technology, SGI
casey@sgi.com				voice: 650.933.1634
casey_p@pager.sgi.com			Pager: 888.220.0607

Re: Binary only module overview

[Steve Lord]

> Hi,
> 
> I'm composing a list of all existing binary only modules, 
> and I got to a list of 26 different modules; I undoubtedly forgot a few, 
> so I hereby request feedback from people who know about modules I
> left out, so that I can complete the list. (I do not really care about
> modules that once existed for 2.0 or earlier and no longer exist for all
> intents and purposes)
> 
> Greetings,
>   Arjan van de Ven
> 
> 

> SGI		- XFS cluster extensions

This is not something which is available yet.

and you can add:

Tricord		- filesystem,

the only public info about this appears here:

http://www.tricord.com/appliance/aggregation?PID=Detail.html&CID=5ecf5843151b4891af7924eb65d548fe&DID=b18e43e06c44406ea73ceedc7f1448f4

they do not advertise the fact that their hardware runs Linux too much.

Steve

Re: Binary only module question

[Tim Bird]

Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> I'm composing a list of all existing binary only modules,

Will the list be available somewhere?

I'm working on a tool that (among other things) indicates
what is "accepted practice" for loadable modules that
are binary.  I seem to recall Linus saying, some years
ago, something about the the fact that the module must
not be fundamental to basic kernel operation.  I can't remember
the exact details of the quote (if anyone has it, I'd 
appreciate a reference to it), but I thought the general
spirit was that add-on's are OK, but basic functionality
(like the scheduler, memory management, driver
*systems* (not drivers themselves), etc.) were off limits for
being binary modules.

I'm assuming that if a module is currently known, and there
does not appear to be great backlash against it, that it 
is accepted practice.  Also, I assume that modules that
perform essentially the same functionality as these would
also be acceptable (from a community standpoint - the
legal standpoint is a different matter).  Basically, I'm
infering a kind of community precendence from existing
known binary modules?

Am I way off?

(And yes, I know that given a choice, the community
vastly prefers an open source module over a binary module)

____________________________________________________________
Tim Bird                                  Lineo, Inc.
Senior VP, Research                       390 South 400 West
tbird@lineo.com                           Lindon, UT 84042

RE: Binary only module overview

[Michael Leun]

Hello,

On 24-Sep-2001 Arjan van de Ven wrote:

> I'm composing a list of all existing binary only modules, 

> Hardware drivers
> ----------------
Samsung         - wireless lan driver (prism2 chipset, binary core with source
                  for interface layer)
                  see www.magiclan.com

-- 
bye,


Michael Leun

Re: Binary only module overview

[Nerijus Baliunas]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 12:40:44 -0400 Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@redhat.com> wrote:

AvdV> Hi,
AvdV> 
AvdV> I'm composing a list of all existing binary only modules, 
AvdV> and I got to a list of 26 different modules; I undoubtedly forgot a few, 
AvdV> so I hereby request feedback from people who know about modules I
AvdV> left out, so that I can complete the list.

Win4Lin both patches kernel and uses binary modules (www.netraverse.com).
Check Point FireWall-1 uses binary module (www.checkpoint.com).

Regards,
Nerijus

Re: Binary only module overview

[Brian Strand]

Arjan van de Ven wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I'm composing a list of all existing binary only modules, 
>and I got to a list of 26 different modules; I undoubtedly forgot a few, 
>so I hereby request feedback from people who know about modules I
>left out, so that I can complete the list. (I do not really care about
>modules that once existed for 2.0 or earlier and no longer exist for all
>intents and purposes)
>
The Znyx driver appears to have a binary-only core (the file znb/rlk.O 
(note the capital letter 'O')).

Regards,
Brian Strand

Re: Binary only module overview

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 12:40:44PM -0400, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 
> I'm composing a list of all existing binary only modules, 

Argus System's PitBull for Linux modifies the kernel.  No source or
patches for these modifications can be found on the web, so I'm guessing
that it's closed source:
	http://www.argus-systems.com/

greg k-h

Re: Binary only module overview

[Mark Zealey]

On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 08:44:39AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 12:40:44PM -0400, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > 
> > I'm composing a list of all existing binary only modules, 
> 
> Argus System's PitBull for Linux modifies the kernel.  No source or
> patches for these modifications can be found on the web, so I'm guessing
> that it's closed source:
> 	http://www.argus-systems.com/

Umm, is it me or is that totally against the GPL? Have you bitched at them about
this?

-- 

Mark Zealey
mark@itsolve.co.uk

UL++++>$ G!>(GCM/GCS/GS/GM) dpu? s:-@ a16! C++++>$ P++++>+++++$ L+++>+++++$
!E---? W+++>$ N- !o? !w--- O? !M? !V? !PS !PE--@ PGP+? r++ !t---?@ !X---?
!R- b+ !tv b+ DI+ D+? G+++ e>+++++ !h++* r!-- y--

(www.geekcode.com)

Re: Binary only module overview

[Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Mark Zealey wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 08:44:39AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 12:40:44PM -0400, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm composing a list of all existing binary only modules,
> >
> > Argus System's PitBull for Linux modifies the kernel.  No source or
> > patches for these modifications can be found on the web, so I'm guessing
> > that it's closed source:
> > 	http://www.argus-systems.com/
>
> Umm, is it me or is that totally against the GPL? Have you bitched at them about
> this?

IIRC, the GPL only talks about _modifications_of_ GPLed code, not
_modifications_made_to_. Argus is treading a line, but it may not be doing
anything illegal.

-- 
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams  <ignacio@openservices.net>

Re: Binary only module overview

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 08:09:47PM +0100, Mark Zealey wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 08:44:39AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 12:40:44PM -0400, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > 
> > > I'm composing a list of all existing binary only modules, 
> > 
> > Argus System's PitBull for Linux modifies the kernel.  No source or
> > patches for these modifications can be found on the web, so I'm guessing
> > that it's closed source:
> > 	http://www.argus-systems.com/
> 
> Umm, is it me or is that totally against the GPL? Have you bitched at them about
> this?

I have only talked to one of their resellers, who could not find a link
to the code anywhere.  I have not asked them directly.  I will go do
that right now.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: Binary only module overview

[Roberto Nibali]

Hi Greg,

> > > Argus System's PitBull for Linux modifies the kernel.  No source or
> > > patches for these modifications can be found on the web, so I'm guessing
> > > that it's closed source:
> > >     http://www.argus-systems.com/
> >
> > Umm, is it me or is that totally against the GPL? Have you bitched at them about
> > this?
> 
> I have only talked to one of their resellers, who could not find a link
> to the code anywhere.  I have not asked them directly.  I will go do
> that right now.

If you're dealing with argus, ask straight for developers or technical
people not resellers. The second problem is that they ceased making
their
Pitbull LX product available for download on the web for some reasons.
Since I work with argus-system products sometime I got the chance of
still
having a copy of this huge tarball and I made a diff or their actual
changes
to the 2.2.19 kernel for you. Unfortunately I had to put it onto a non-
argus related development site and I will leave it there for the next 12 
hours. Grab it, analyse it and convince yourself that they actually go
quite into the direction of the LSM framework approach. Actually I
talked
to one of the argus technical guys about a possible port to the LSM
frame-
work and he said that they are going to look into it. Of course the lkm
with the real security functionality is binary only. Decide yourself ...

http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/~ratz/argus.diff

Best regards,
Roberto Nibali, ratz

Re: Binary only module overview

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 11:09:43PM +0200, Roberto Nibali wrote:
> 
> If you're dealing with argus, ask straight for developers or technical
> people not resellers.

I did just directly email them.  Thanks for letting me know.

> The second problem is that they ceased making their
> Pitbull LX product available for download on the web for some reasons.
> Since I work with argus-system products sometime I got the chance of
> still having a copy of this huge tarball and I made a diff or their
> actual changes to the 2.2.19 kernel for you. Unfortunately I had to
> put it onto a non- argus related development site and I will leave it
> there for the next 12 hours. Grab it, analyse it and convince yourself
> that they actually go quite into the direction of the LSM framework
> approach. Actually I talked to one of the argus technical guys about a
> possible port to the LSM frame- work and he said that they are going
> to look into it. Of course the lkm with the real security
> functionality is binary only. Decide yourself ...

Thank you for putting this up.  It looks like they are placing hooks all
through the kernel, much like the LSM patch does.

And since they are patching the kernel to provide hooks for their
security module, they should also release that security module source
code to remain legal.

Thanks again.

greg k-h

Re: Binary only module overview

[Roberto Nibali]

Hi Greg,

> Thank you for putting this up.  It looks like they are placing hooks all
> through the kernel, much like the LSM patch does.

Yep, and I reckon that they could port their security module to the
LSM one within one week. I mentioned it to Peter Loscocco at OLS 2001 
at the LSM BOF.
 
> And since they are patching the kernel to provide hooks for their
> security module, they should also release that security module source
> code to remain legal.

I don't know about GPL and kernel related rights but I can hardly 
imagine a company that has a B1 certified product not to care well
about their other products to be on the right side of the law. I 
can talk to them on thursday about this at the comdex/orbit showcase.
The outcome of your legality statement might be crucial for their 
future business.

BTW, I recall the HP Linux which IMO also violates the GPL then, doesn't
it? http://www.hp.com/security/products/linux/opensource/
Or does this differ in them providing the source code even for the LKMs
as opposite to argus which has binary only LKMs?

> Thanks again.

No problem, regards,
Roberto Nibali, ratz

Re: Binary only module overview

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 12:14:06AM +0200, Roberto Nibali wrote:
> 
> I don't know about GPL and kernel related rights but I can hardly 
> imagine a company that has a B1 certified product not to care well
> about their other products to be on the right side of the law. I 
> can talk to them on thursday about this at the comdex/orbit showcase.
> The outcome of your legality statement might be crucial for their 
> future business.

Yes, the LSM licensing issue seems to be critical to a lot of people :)
Presently I am waiting for a response from WireX as to what their stance
is.

> BTW, I recall the HP Linux which IMO also violates the GPL then, doesn't
> it? http://www.hp.com/security/products/linux/opensource/
> Or does this differ in them providing the source code even for the LKMs
> as opposite to argus which has binary only LKMs?

Exactly.  It looks like HP provides the source code for everything
(someone tell me if I'm wrong here) while Argus looks like they only
provide the kernel patches and a compiled loadable module binary, under
a unknown license (at this time.)

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: Binary only module overview

[Roberto Nibali]

> Yes, the LSM licensing issue seems to be critical to a lot of people :)

I read the current evolvement of the LSM framework and its ongoing
licensing discussions with great affection and joy :) This is what
happens if too many third party vendors get interested in yet another
possiblity of selling their product under Linux legally ...

> Presently I am waiting for a response from WireX as to what their stance
> is.

Ok. I thought it had to be GPL anyway but then again I'm not too
familiar with the whole LSM "patch" yet. It seems as if there are
multiple licenses needed. [Well, that's what we have the MODULE_LICENSE
for then.]
 
> Exactly.  It looks like HP provides the source code for everything
> (someone tell me if I'm wrong here) while Argus looks like they only
> provide the kernel patches and a compiled loadable module binary, under
> a unknown license (at this time.)

I put their license on the page too. Enjoy the binary software license:
http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/~ratz/argus-license.txt
 
Cheers,
Roberto Nibali, ratz

Re: Binary only module overview

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 01:42:32PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 08:09:47PM +0100, Mark Zealey wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 08:44:39AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 12:40:44PM -0400, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > I'm composing a list of all existing binary only modules, 
> > > 
> > > Argus System's PitBull for Linux modifies the kernel.  No source or
> > > patches for these modifications can be found on the web, so I'm guessing
> > > that it's closed source:
> > > 	http://www.argus-systems.com/
> > 
> > Umm, is it me or is that totally against the GPL? Have you bitched at them about
> > this?
> 
> I have only talked to one of their resellers, who could not find a link
> to the code anywhere.  I have not asked them directly.  I will go do
> that right now.

Argus has responded to me that their kernel patch is released under the
GPL (and will be placing it up on a sf.net site soon.)  However their
security kernel module that their patch uses is closed source.  So add
them to the closed source module list :)

As for the legality of modifying the kernel to provide hooks for your
closed source driver, I'm not going to argue that one, but I thought it
was forbidden.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: Binary only module overview

[Alan Cox]

> As for the legality of modifying the kernel to provide hooks for your
> closed source driver, I'm not going to argue that one, but I thought it
> was forbidden.

Indeed.

Re: Binary only module overview

[Fabbione]

Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 

> Highlevel drivers
> -----------------

You can probably add mvfs ClearCase file system but I don't remember the
URL.

Cheers
Fabbione

-- 
Debian GNU/Linux Unstable Kernel 2.4.9
fabbione on irc.atdot.it #coredump #kchat | fabbione@fabbione.net

Re: Binary only module overview

[Edward S. Marshall]

On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 06:43:39PM +0200, Fabbione wrote:
> You can probably add mvfs ClearCase file system but I don't remember the
> URL.

http://www.rational.com/ is the corporate website, and the particular product
is at http://www.rational.com/products/clearcase/ .

The actual module is an implementation of the Rational (previously Atria)
ClearCase mvfs filesystem for Linux; it is composed of a source-available
translation layer, and a binary-only core.

One important note to mention: they only support Red Hat-supplied kernels;
there is a high chance of failure using it with a stock kernel, due to
changes in internal structures required by mvfs.

-- 
Edward S. Marshall <esm@logic.net>                        http://esm.logic.net/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[                  Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.                  ]

Re: Binary only module overview

[Jes Sorensen]

>>>>> "Arjan" == Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@redhat.com> writes:

Arjan> Hi, I'm composing a list of all existing binary only modules,
Arjan> and I got to a list of 26 different modules; I undoubtedly
Arjan> forgot a few, so I hereby request feedback from people who know
Arjan> about modules I left out, so that I can complete the list. (I
Arjan> do not really care about modules that once existed for 2.0 or
Arjan> earlier and no longer exist for all intents and purposes)

Arjan> Greetings, Arjan van de Ven

Arjan> Hardware drivers ---------------- 

JNI - Fibre Channel cards: http://www.jni.com/Drivers/drivers2.cfm?OS=6

Can't seem to find any source there ;-(

Jes

Re: Binary only module overview

[Daniel Caujolle-Bert]

Hi,

Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I'm composing a list of all existing binary only modules,
> and I got to a list of 26 different modules; I undoubtedly forgot a few,
> so I hereby request feedback from people who know about modules I
> left out, so that I can complete the list. (I do not really care about
> modules that once existed for 2.0 or earlier and no longer exist for all
> intents and purposes)
> 
> Greetings,
>   Arjan van de Ven
> 
> Hardware drivers
> ----------------
[...]
> PCTel           - winmodem driver

	This one is not really 100% binary only, it use
an modified version of serial.c kernel driver. Of course
it's freely available.

Cheers.
-- 
73's de Daniel, F1RMB.

              -=- Daniel Caujolle-Bert -=- segfault@club-internet.fr -=-
                        -=- f1rmb@f1rmb.ampr.org (AMPR NET) -=-

Re: Binary only module overview

[Arjan van de Ven]

Daniel Caujolle-Bert wrote:

> > Hardware drivers
> > ----------------
> [...]
> > PCTel           - winmodem driver
> 
>         This one is not really 100% binary only, it use
> an modified version of serial.c kernel driver. Of course
> it's freely available.

That I would call an obvious GPL violation... no discussion
about vague "interfaces", if you directly link serial.c 
(even modified) into a non-GPL .o file that's obvious....

Re: Binary only module overview

[Alan Cox]

> That I would call an obvious GPL violation... no discussion
> about vague "interfaces", if you directly link serial.c 
> (even modified) into a non-GPL .o file that's obvious....

I raised this one with Ted T'so (who wrote the serial.c they use) a long
time ago. Ted seemed happy for this to occur - and its kind of his code,
his business.

Re: Binary only module overview

[Nicholas Knight]

On Friday 28 September 2001 07:42 am, Alan Cox wrote:
> > That I would call an obvious GPL violation... no discussion
> > about vague "interfaces", if you directly link serial.c
> > (even modified) into a non-GPL .o file that's obvious....
>
> I raised this one with Ted T'so (who wrote the serial.c they use) a
> long time ago. Ted seemed happy for this to occur - and its kind of
> his code, his business.

Prehaps it'd be a good idea to (unofficialy) ask authors of drivers in 
the kernel that are thought to be GPL'd and not known to be under other 
licenses (BSD etc.), to (when possible) let the public know that 
they've granted some sort of license to a company/person to use that 
code in a binary-only module, so that people don't start accusing 
people of blatant GPL violations if they happen to notice. serial.c 
would be a perfect example of something that could be construed as a 
blatant violation and people might start yelling at the company and 
others about it, and it might make the company less willing to support 
Linux *at all*.

I'd prefer that there was no such thing as a binary-only module, but 
IMO binary-only is better than no support whatsoever. And if people 
start yelling at companies for using something they may have a 
legitimate license for, those companies may wonder what the point is in 
supporting Linux at all.

(This isn't directed at Arjan van de Ven, he just stated obvious facts, 
he didn't go off half-cocked at anybody :)

Re: Binary only module overview

[Albert D. Cahalan]

Nicholas Knight writes:

> I'd prefer that there was no such thing as a binary-only module, but 
> IMO binary-only is better than no support whatsoever.

If the module works in user-space Linux, problem solved.

Re: Binary only module overview

[Daniel Caujolle-Bert]

Alan Cox wrote:
> 
> > That I would call an obvious GPL violation... no discussion
> > about vague "interfaces", if you directly link serial.c
> > (even modified) into a non-GPL .o file that's obvious....
> 
> I raised this one with Ted T'so (who wrote the serial.c they use) a long
> time ago. Ted seemed happy for this to occur - and its kind of his code,
> his business.

	I don't understand you here, sorry, complicated sentence are
hard for me :<. Anyway, i am one of the one who hacked and old version
of this driver for 2.4.7+, of course i can understand it's a GPL
violation,
but like another guy wrote (sorry, i haven't his name liying around),
binary only module is *almost* better than no support.
	
Cheers.
-- 
73's de Daniel, F1RMB.

              -=- Daniel Caujolle-Bert -=- segfault@club-internet.fr -=-
                        -=- f1rmb@f1rmb.ampr.org (AMPR NET) -=-