Slashdot Mirror
Kernel Modules that Lie About Their Licenses
jon787 writes "An email to LKML about the Linuxant's HSF Modem drivers lying to the kernel about their license has prompted some interesting replies. Lots of talk about how to effectively blacklist these kind of things; a patch is here. One of the more interesting is this one. Linus as always has his $0.02."
You make it sound like he's just a figurehead now. I would expect him to say something, and I would expect slashdot to not trivialize it.
Anyway, I suspect that rather than blacklist bad people, I'd much preferto have the module tags be done as counted strings instead. It should be easy enough to do by just having the macro prepend a sizeof(xxxx)" thing or something.
Great idea, for this hack, anyway. Problem is, they'll come up with something else next time. I think this one really is up to the lawyers, unfortunately.
Modules should not lie about their licenses. Fine.
BUT... the linux kernel developers need to get over their fanaticism about open-source drivers. There are many reasons companies cannot or will not make their driver source public. For wireless cards, the FCC effectively prohibits it. For video cards and others, much of the value of the card is in fact in the driver and companies have a right to keep that under wraps.
Part of every attempt to legislate (which the kernel's interrogation of drivers is) should include the question "how will people cheat, and how can we stop this". Otherwise this kind of game is inevitable.
(And if the answer to the question is: "people will cheat and we can't stop them", then there is little point in playing legislator.)
Ceci n'est pas une signature
All those C string functions are todays source of plague. Even though I'm not Miguel de Icaza it's obvious that we should move to something new.
Actually, I buy hardware based on how well it does the job, how well it performs, how reliable it is. The firmware could be written in elbonian pictograms for all i care, and i would hope that most people buying IT hardware do the same thing.
If you can't find it in your heart to accept binary drivers, maybe computers aren't for you ;) j/k
Why did they even bother with this silly (if not cunning) trick in the first place? I mean, OK, no one loves the "kernel tainted" message, but at the end of the day, is it really that much of a deal that it needs to be circumvented?
I think a more appropriate way of handling things would be have a message explaining _why_ the tainted message is coming up, and why they can't GPL the driver. Work with the system, not against it.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
If /. has no respect for other people's choice in licenses and cheers people ignoring the license, then it must also cheer on people breaking the license in Linux. You can't have it both ways.
It is a problem with the company lying to the kernel
Yes, but the kernel is not a person, right? In fact lying to hardware/software is a well-accepted practice for interoperability, emulation and fair use. If we want it to be illegal, we might as well defend DMCA.
Suppose that Lexmark made a printer that looked for a certain string in a ROM on an ink cartridge. Let's say the string was "The manufacturer of this cartridge agrees to the terms of the ELL (Evil Lexmark License)." If the string is present, the printer works great; if the string is not present, the printer has undesirable behavior of some kind.
Further suppose you want to make an ink cartridge for your Lexmark printer, and thus for the purposes of optimum interoperability, you imbed into the ROM: "The manufacturer of this cartridge agrees to the terms of the ELL (Evil Lexmark License).\0Just kidding. Of course I don't REALLY agree to the Evil Lexmark License, because after all, IT'S EVIL!! It even has \"Evil\" right there in the name, what more proof do you need?!? Sheesh, people!"
Are you bound to the ELL?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The hell you say. A Cisco router is just a CPU and some RAM with a few IO ports thrown in. Its the IOS firmware and software that makes it do its thing.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Here's why:
If Office 2003 started asking the Win32 API - areYouReallyMicrosoftWindows(). Then MS Windows would return true...
What would Wine get to return?
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
The problem with the compatibility argument is that it's wrong. The primary purpose of the license string is to track whether the kernel has loaded a closed-source module. Many kernel hackers choose to ignore bug reports from systems that have loaded closed-source modules since there's a very good chance that the bug is in code that they can't access and fix. But failing to export a GPL compatible license string doesn't have any effect on the kernel's ability to load and run a module, so there's no compatibility reason to export a dishonest description of the module's license.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
That's a ridiculous statement. The firmware IS the router. Without the firmware, the router is a few of off-the-shelf ethernet chips and a processor. The only difference between many different products is the firmware.
When you buy a router, you're buying the function of routing. That's nearly 100% implemented in the firmware (for consumer-level routers, probably IS 100%). The hardware is just there to support the firmware's function.
And with the DMCA firmly in place, it will be illegal to hack YOUR hardware.
Jeez, I used to think I might be a little paranoid, but not any more...
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Important differences between the case you cite and this one:
1. That's a trademark, this is copyright. Very different.
2. There is no real reason why they _have_ to have "GPL" at the start there. Their code will work without it, it will just cause a message to the effect that there are non-GPL drivers loaded to be displayed.
3. In the case you site it _is_ the console's integral code that displays the trademark. In this case it is the module code in question that includes the text "GPL", followed by a string termination character, in a space reserved for the module's license.
OTOH, I would note that the letters GPL do not in themselves constitue a license grant; they are merely an abbreviation that is usually used to refer to a specific license. In this case, however, they could just as easily stand for "Greg's Private License" (under which you don't get any rights whatsoever).
You get certain kernel data structures. No GPL, no special data. That's what the problem is (LinuxAnt wants GPL-only data, but they aren't GPL).
:)
LinuxAnt is really screwed here, as their drivers obviously won't work anymore
My other car is first.
It's not just a political issue, but I guess if you have political issues with operating systems, that's a conveniently ignorant view to take of the situation. This driver is surreptitiously loading itself as non-GPL code while telling us that it is GPL. This effects the way Linux hackers treat bug reports that are tainted with this module. This is accomplished by loading that "GPL" flag and enabling helpers that prevent bugs reports from being flagged as tainted.
Therefore, not only does it complicate bug reports, it complicates bug reports by loading pieces of code that it's not allowed to. I'd say that makes it malware, rather than a political issue.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
The problem is that it doesn't always work with your kernel. If the binary driver causes a problem with the kernel, the kernel developers have no way of tracking down the bug since they don't have access to that code. That is the point of having binary modules taint the kernel. How would you like to receive bug reports for someone elses software and not realize that it's someone elses bug?
Dinivin
Personally, I don't see the problem with using binary only drivers.
Neither do the kernel developers; the -great-great-etc-grandparent's assertion that they actively refuse to allow all things closed source was a straw man. All the kernel developers want to be able to do is have the kernel note when it is running a closed-source driver, so that they can easily filter out bug reports that would require them to have access to sources they don't have. They don't want to get blamed for problems caused by someone else's code whom they can't do anything about. Who in the hell can fault them for that?
But then its MY choice, not the kernel nazis. I thought that is what Linux was all about, Free as in speech, not as in beer.
It is your choice. The "kernel nazis" are in whole hearted agreement. They just want to be able to mark kernel dumps from kernels they can't fix. Their choice. Comprende?