is it possible to have a kernel module with a BSD license?!

is it possible to have a kernel module with a BSD license?!

[Bruce Ferrell]

from the project announcement on freshmeat:


  Dazuko 2.0.0-pre5 (Default)
  by John Ogness - Tuesday, November 11th 2003 06:56 PST

About:
This project provides a kernel module which provides 3rd-party 
applications with an interface for file access control. It was 
originally developed for on-access virus scanning. Other uses include a 
file-access monitor/logger or external security implementations. It 
operates by intercepting file-access calls and passing the file 
information to a 3rd-party application. The 3rd-party application then 
has the opportunity to tell the kernel module to allow or deny the 
file-access. The 3rd-party application also receives information about 
the file, such as type of access, process ID, user ID, etc.

Release focus: Minor bugfixes

Changes:
Some "in use" problems with spontaneous context-switches when unloading 
under FreeBSD were fixed. Macros for hooking/unhooking system calls were 
added. Filename length restrictions were removed. Code for generating 
protocol13 was abstracted and moved into XP layer. Support for filenames 
with non-printable characters was added. The ability to compile the 
interface library without 1.x compatibility was added. An "off by one" 
bug which occurred when calculating include/exclude path lengths was 
fixed. Support for Linux 2.6 kernels was added (not yet complete, but 
very functional).

                                 Last release   	 License   	
Default 	2.0.0-pre5 	24-Dec-2003 	BSD License (revised)

Re: is it possible to have a kernel module with a BSD license?!

[Arjan van de Ven]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 715 bytes --]

On Wed, 2003-12-24 at 16:17, Bruce Ferrell wrote:
> from the project announcement on freshmeat:
> 
> 
>   Dazuko 2.0.0-pre5 (Default)
>   by John Ogness - Tuesday, November 11th 2003 06:56 PST
> 
> About:
> This project provides a kernel module which provides 3rd-party 
> applications with an interface for file access control. It was 
> originally developed for on-access virus scanning. Other uses include a 
> file-access monitor/logger or external security implementations. It 
> operates by intercepting file-access calls and passing the file 
> information to a 3rd-party application. The 3rd-party application the

I think you need to look further; the linux kernel portion sure is GPL
...

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: is it possible to have a kernel module with a BSD license?!

[Stan Bubrouski]

Why would anyone want to BSD license a kernel module, honestly...

-sb

On Wed, 2003-12-24 at 10:17, Bruce Ferrell wrote:
> from the project announcement on freshmeat:
> 
> 
>   Dazuko 2.0.0-pre5 (Default)
>   by John Ogness - Tuesday, November 11th 2003 06:56 PST
> 
> About:
> This project provides a kernel module which provides 3rd-party 
> applications with an interface for file access control. It was 
> originally developed for on-access virus scanning. Other uses include a 
> file-access monitor/logger or external security implementations. It 
> operates by intercepting file-access calls and passing the file 
> information to a 3rd-party application. The 3rd-party application then 
> has the opportunity to tell the kernel module to allow or deny the 
> file-access. The 3rd-party application also receives information about 
> the file, such as type of access, process ID, user ID, etc.
> 
> Release focus: Minor bugfixes
> 
> Changes:
> Some "in use" problems with spontaneous context-switches when unloading 
> under FreeBSD were fixed. Macros for hooking/unhooking system calls were 
> added. Filename length restrictions were removed. Code for generating 
> protocol13 was abstracted and moved into XP layer. Support for filenames 
> with non-printable characters was added. The ability to compile the 
> interface library without 1.x compatibility was added. An "off by one" 
> bug which occurred when calculating include/exclude path lengths was 
> fixed. Support for Linux 2.6 kernels was added (not yet complete, but 
> very functional).
> 
>                                  Last release   	 License   	
> Default 	2.0.0-pre5 	24-Dec-2003 	BSD License (revised)
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 

Re: is it possible to have a kernel module with a BSD license?!

[Mike Fedyk]

On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 05:01:25PM -0500, Stan Bubrouski wrote:
> Why would anyone want to BSD license a kernel module, honestly...

to work with *BSD?

Re: is it possible to have a kernel module with a BSD license?!

[Mike Fedyk]

On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 05:10:14PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-12-24 at 16:17, Bruce Ferrell wrote:
> > from the project announcement on freshmeat:
> > 
> > 
> >   Dazuko 2.0.0-pre5 (Default)
> >   by John Ogness - Tuesday, November 11th 2003 06:56 PST
> > 
> > About:
> > This project provides a kernel module which provides 3rd-party 
> > applications with an interface for file access control. It was 
> > originally developed for on-access virus scanning. Other uses include a 
> > file-access monitor/logger or external security implementations. It 
> > operates by intercepting file-access calls and passing the file 
> > information to a 3rd-party application. The 3rd-party application the
> 
> I think you need to look further; the linux kernel portion sure is GPL
> ...

Then the wrapper can be GPL then and the rest BSD?

Re: is it possible to have a kernel module with a BSD license?!

[Samuel Flory]

Mike Fedyk wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 05:10:14PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 
>>On Wed, 2003-12-24 at 16:17, Bruce Ferrell wrote:
>>
>>>from the project announcement on freshmeat:
>>>
>>>
>>>  Dazuko 2.0.0-pre5 (Default)
>>>  by John Ogness - Tuesday, November 11th 2003 06:56 PST
>>>
>>>About:
>>>This project provides a kernel module which provides 3rd-party 
>>>applications with an interface for file access control. It was 
>>>originally developed for on-access virus scanning. Other uses include a 
>>>file-access monitor/logger or external security implementations. It 
>>>operates by intercepting file-access calls and passing the file 
>>>information to a 3rd-party application. The 3rd-party application the
>>
>>I think you need to look further; the linux kernel portion sure is GPL
>>...
> 
> 
> Then the wrapper can be GPL then and the rest BSD?

   Exactly a module intended to run on both linux, and say freebsd would 
not be a derived work of linux.  (At least if I'm understanding Linus 
right.) The portion that interfaces with linux would obvious be a 
derived work.  It could be very easily (correctly imho)) argued that the 
module when compiled for linux would be bound by the gpl. In fact you'd 
be better off dual licensing the generic sections under both BSD, and 
GPL, while leaving linux wrapper gpl, and the *BSD wrapper BSD.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=linus+derived+work&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=YPep.5Y5.21%40gated-at.bofh.it&rnum=1

PS- IANAL!
-- 
There is no such thing as obsolete hardware.
Merely hardware that other people don't want.
(The Second Rule of Hardware Acquisition)
Sam Flory  <sflory@rackable.com>

Re: is it possible to have a kernel module with a BSD license?!

[David Lang]

the question comes back to looking if it's derived from the linux kernel.

if it is then it must be GPL (GPL doesn't allow anything else)

if it isn't then it can be becouse the GPL is compatable with BSD code.
(it becomes GPL for purposes of the kernel, but is also available for
other uses under the BSD license)

however the big question as always remains 'is this derived from the
kernel code'

David Lang


On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, Mike Fedyk wrote:

> Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:10:24 -0800
> From: Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com>
> To: Stan Bubrouski <stan@ccs.neu.edu>
> Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
> Subject: Re: is it possible to have a kernel module with a BSD license?!
>
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 05:01:25PM -0500, Stan Bubrouski wrote:
> > Why would anyone want to BSD license a kernel module, honestly...
>
> to work with *BSD?
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>

-- 
"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: is it possible to have a kernel module with a BSD license?!

[Arjan van de Ven]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 279 bytes --]

On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 02:11:14PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > I think you need to look further; the linux kernel portion sure is GPL
> > ...
> 
> Then the wrapper can be GPL then and the rest BSD?

The BSD license is actually GPL compatible so that's perfectly fine....

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

Re: is it possible to have a kernel module with a BSD license?!

[Samuel Flory]

David Lang wrote:
> the question comes back to looking if it's derived from the linux kernel.
> 
> if it is then it must be GPL (GPL doesn't allow anything else)
> 
> if it isn't then it can be becouse the GPL is compatable with BSD code.
> (it becomes GPL for purposes of the kernel, but is also available for
> other uses under the BSD license)
> 
> however the big question as always remains 'is this derived from the
> kernel code'


   Well it's obviously derived if any of the following is true:

1)You are using any linux you borrowed from gpl sources.
2)The module uses a lot internal kernel hooks.

Linus claims that is it's derived if:

1)It only supports linux.  (He's got a point.)
2)It was originally written for linux. (I'd disagree, but IANAL)


Certainly you'd have a leg to stand on if:
1)The module was really cross platform.  (Extra points for it working on 
*BSD, or the like 1st.)
2)The linux headers are clearly marked gpl.
3)Every accessing internal linux kernel functions was in the linux headers.
4)Everything in the module was gpl, or bsd.  (Less to do things being 
derived than with if you can legally use the result.)

-- 
There is no such thing as obsolete hardware.
Merely hardware that other people don't want.
(The Second Rule of Hardware Acquisition)
Sam Flory  <sflory@rackable.com>

Re: is it possible to have a kernel module with a BSD license?!

[Helge Hafting]

On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 07:17:02AM -0800, Bruce Ferrell wrote:
> from the project announcement on freshmeat:
> 
> 
>  Dazuko 2.0.0-pre5 (Default)
>  by John Ogness - Tuesday, November 11th 2003 06:56 PST
> 
> About:
> This project provides a kernel module which provides 3rd-party 
> applications with an interface for file access control. It was 
> originally developed for on-access virus scanning. Other uses include a 

"On access" seems to be exactly the wrong moment for a virus check - 
that way you are getting the check delay at the worst moment, when
the user actually want to use the file.  

Consider doing virus checking on write only, viruses spread
only at that time.  

Virus checkers that run during idle time s also a good idea.

Helge Hafting

Re: is it possible to have a kernel module with a BSD license?!

[Ryan Anderson]

[snipping a bit to keep this succint]

On Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 03:51:02PM +0100, Helge Hafting wrote:
> > About:
> > This project provides a kernel module which provides 3rd-party 
> > applications with an interface for file access control. It was 
> > originally developed for on-access virus scanning. Other uses include a 
> 
> "On access" seems to be exactly the wrong moment for a virus check - 
> that way you are getting the check delay at the worst moment, when
> the user actually want to use the file.  
> 
> Consider doing virus checking on write only, viruses spread
> only at that time.  

So, when I stick my nicely virus infected floppy/cdrom/etc into your
machine, and your write-only virus scan gets disabled by my module
patching virus...

So, when I stick my nicely virus infected floppy/cdrom/etc into your
machine, and your write-only virus scan gets disabled by the module
the virus loads...


-- 

Ryan Anderson
  sometimes Pug Majere