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

Marc Boucher
2004-04-28T16:17:12Z

Hi Helge,

On Apr 28, 2004, at 7:47 AM, Helge Hafting wrote:

> Marc Boucher wrote:
>> Dear Rusty,
>> We generally prefer to focus on making stuff work for users,
>> rather than waste time arguing about controversial GPL politics.
>
> There is no need to _argue_ about the GPL if you don't want to.
> Just obey the terms. If you don't, then you're arguing.

We are not disobeying the terms nor is there anything in the GPL that
prohibits specifically our workaround. In fact, there is tons of GPL
software out there that use even more blatant/questionable techniques
to work around constraints imposed by commercial software, which
illustrates the hypocrisy of some advocates.

>
> To me, the argument above looks like "we concentrate on making
> things work for our customers, not on obeying the laws." An argument
> frequently used by people you probably don't want to be compared with.
> You probably didn't intend it that way, but that
> what it looks like for those serious about the GPL.

You can try to make it look like whatever you like but this is not what
I said.

>
>> That's why after the practical workaround was done we moved on
>> to deal with more acute technical issues at the time and failed
>> to properly discuss/follow up on the matter with you. Please accept my
>> sincere personal apology for this.
>> I would like however to point out that part of the reason why people
>> sometimes resort to such kludges is that some kernel maintainers have
>> been rather reluctant to accommodate proprietary drivers which
> Do not be surprised that people don't want to support your driver for
> free.
> Everything has a price. Business usually wants to be paid in money,
> kernel coders tend to want payment in the form of GPL'ed code.
>
> Not wanting to pay in code _is_ ok, but then you get to deal with any
> trouble happening to any kernel running your module, because nobody
> else volunteers.

We are providing code as much as possible, without expecting free
support, but are still getting flamed.

>
>> unfortunately are a necessary real-world evil (Linus told me just a
>> few
>> days ago that he didn't care and to "go away" after we requested a
>> clean
>> solution to handle larger kernel stacks for "foreign" NDIS drivers in
>> a way
>> that could perhaps coexist with the new 4K stacks used by default in
>> recent 2.6.6/fedora kernels).
>
> Well, sometimes design decisions simply doesn't go your way. There may
> indeed be no way to make Linus change his mind, so of course he tells
> you
> to go away. The same would happen if you tried to have microsoft make
> a
> design change _they_ don't want. You are lucky in the linux case
> though,
> kernel developers may not support your NDIS driver but you _can_ supply
> your own kernel patch (or a complete kernel) with big stacks.
> Right now the 4k stack is relatively new, so the patch for 8k is
> simple.
> In the future, there will probably be bigger pages and then your
> problem goes away. In the meantime you're allowed to maintain your
> own patch for whatever you can't get into mainline.

Kernel patching and recompilation is not a practical option for most
average linux users, who are unable or unwilling do it, because it is a
long and difficult procedure. We aim to provide professional products
that are straightforward to install and just work out of the box, with
standard distributions, not custom kernel patches.

>> Anyway, in an effort to reasonably resolve the \0 issue, to
>> (hopefully) mutual
>> satisfaction I propose that we update our drivers to explicitly set
>> the tainted
>> bit manually after they are loaded - perhaps via sysctl() or by
>> running
>> "echo 1 > /proc/sys/kernel/tainted" via {modules,modprobe}.conf,
>> or simply changing the '\0' to ' ' in one of the modules'
>> MODULE_LICENSE()
>> macro, causing the kernel to be tainted upon load and the confusing
>> messages
>> to appear once instead of 5-6 times in a row. The latter approach
>> seems
>> simple and straightforward. Would it be acceptable to you as a
>> compromise until
>> your patch and hopefully something equivalent for 2.4 propagate to
>> users?
> I believe you have to remove the \0 to operate legally (or release the
> full source under the GPL for real.)
> Your customer's problem is fixable though. Either by also changing
> the logging level
> so the message doesn't go out on the console, or by patching the line
> with that printk() out of your customer's kernel.
> You can do this as a part of your install program. If it gets too
> hard, consider
> supplying the customer with your own precompiled kernel.

Thank you for the advice. However, if you knew our customers and
understood their needs better you would realize that these are not
feasible options.

Marc

>
> Helge Hafting
>