From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 03:03:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 03:03:34 -0400 Received: from mail.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.131]:48026 "EHLO shell.webmaster.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 03:03:20 -0400 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Aaron Lehmann" Cc: Subject: RE: Linux 2.4.9-ac6 Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 00:03:39 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20010904225638.B9241@vitelus.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 10:16:15PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > > Yes, but even if the module is GPL'd, the module could > > still cost $1,000 > > and you're not entitled to the source if you didn't buy the > > module. If what > > you want is "source code is available to the general public", > > then that can > > be true or false for both GPL'd and non-GPL'd modules. > WTF. > > You understand that the GPL would allow the reporter to include the > module source, right? It also doesn't really matter if it doesn't come > with source because someone using the binary has a legal right to ask > for source. Sure, they have the legal right to ask for the source, but they might or might not do so and might or might not make the source available to the reporter. I think, perhaps, the logic should be that a module shouldn't taint the kernel if: 1) The user built the module from source on that machine, OR 2) The module source is freely available without restriction But maybe I'm still not understanding what tainting is supposed to mean. Note that both '1' and '2' are orthogonal to whether the module is GPL'd or not. '2' would require a copyrighted tag, so that legal action could be taken against those who misuse it (not that it's likely, considering it doesn't really give any new capability and such deception would be rapidly detected). I'm not sure if '1' is doable. Perhaps put a 'random' tag in the config file and include that tag when the module is compiled. If the tags match, then don't taint. This would catch config changes without module rebuilds too. I think it's worth the effort to get this right to avoid sending the message that if you use anything that's not GPL'd, the Linux community won't help you. (Not that that's really what's happening, but it may look that way.) DS