4 ms·

How feasible is it to avoid using GPL_ONLY symbols? Because if you for sure need GPL modules for some use cases[1], then I believe the point still stands. [1]

How feasible is it to avoid using GPL_ONLY symbols? Because if you for sure need GPL modules for some use cases[1], then I believe the point still stands. [1] This is, being unable to even reimplement the functions yourself in a self-contained module.

johnny22 5y ago
both zfs and nvidia do it, don't they? Or at least they haven't been in trouble over it :)
- asveikau 5y ago
  Wasn't there a module in the early 2000s that set its license to something like: "GPL\0 with the following exceptions ..." So when the kernel pieces that enforced GPL_ONLY did a strcmp on the license, it came up as GPL. I forget who it was who tried that. This came up in a Google search: https://lwn.net/Articles/220349/ https://lwn.net/Articles/220349/ https://lkml.org/lkml/2006/10/27/233 https://lkml.org/lkml/2006/10/27/233 https://lwn.net/Articles/118269/ https://lwn.net/Articles/118269/
- phendrenad2 5y ago
  zfs and nvidia work around it by requiring user intervention to apply the patch. Once the kernel is tainted by zfs or nvidia code, the user can't share it without violating the GPL (IANAL but that's my understanding). In the era of always-on internet connections, this is a feasible solution, except it's the kernel, so perhaps ethernet and wifi drivers might have a bit of a catch-22 using this method :)
- marcan_42 5y ago
  Korg ships a module with their Kronos workstation that re-exports some GPL symbols as non-GPL. They also ship the source for the kernel itself, but "conveniently" forgot to include a patch they added for DRM that makes their synthesizer module (yes the synth runs in kernel space) fail to work properly if missing. Some obfuscated change to the CD-ROM subsystem (yes really, they stuck some unrelated protection in there as obfuscation) Blatant GPL violations are rampant.
  - ladyanita22 5y ago
    Wouldn't it just be better to reimplement whatever functionality they require themselves without recurring to GPL modules that break the license and expose them to legal risk?
  - pabs3 5y ago
    You might want to report that Korg violation to Conservancy: https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/help.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/help.html Since you are a Linux kernel developer, you might want to join their Linux GPL compliance program: https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/help.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/help.html

johnny22 5y ago

both zfs and nvidia do it, don't they? Or at least they haven't been in trouble over it :)

asveikau 5y ago
Wasn't there a module in the early 2000s that set its license to something like: "GPL\0 with the following exceptions ..." So when the kernel pieces that enforced GPL_ONLY did a strcmp on the license, it came up as GPL. I forget who it was who tried that. This came up in a Google search: https://lwn.net/Articles/220349/ https://lwn.net/Articles/220349/ https://lkml.org/lkml/2006/10/27/233 https://lkml.org/lkml/2006/10/27/233 https://lwn.net/Articles/118269/ https://lwn.net/Articles/118269/
phendrenad2 5y ago
zfs and nvidia work around it by requiring user intervention to apply the patch. Once the kernel is tainted by zfs or nvidia code, the user can't share it without violating the GPL (IANAL but that's my understanding). In the era of always-on internet connections, this is a feasible solution, except it's the kernel, so perhaps ethernet and wifi drivers might have a bit of a catch-22 using this method :)
marcan_42 5y ago
Korg ships a module with their Kronos workstation that re-exports some GPL symbols as non-GPL. They also ship the source for the kernel itself, but "conveniently" forgot to include a patch they added for DRM that makes their synthesizer module (yes the synth runs in kernel space) fail to work properly if missing. Some obfuscated change to the CD-ROM subsystem (yes really, they stuck some unrelated protection in there as obfuscation) Blatant GPL violations are rampant.
- ladyanita22 5y ago
  Wouldn't it just be better to reimplement whatever functionality they require themselves without recurring to GPL modules that break the license and expose them to legal risk?
- pabs3 5y ago
  You might want to report that Korg violation to Conservancy: https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/help.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/help.html Since you are a Linux kernel developer, you might want to join their Linux GPL compliance program: https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/help.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/help.html