[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
SubjectRe: Input on the Non-GPL Modules
* Greg Boyce <> on Thu, Oct 18, 2001:

> However, with the addition of GPL only symbols, you add motivation for
> conning. Not by end users, but by the developers of binary only
> modules. If they export the GPL license symbol, they gain access to
> kernel symbols that they may want to use. Since no code is actually being
> stolen, would this kind of trick actually cause a licensing violation?

Yeah, but the GPL requires availability of source, so I don't see how they
could get around that (it would no longer be a closed-source module and might
as well be GPL'd).

Hmm, does MODULE_LICENSE() actually state that the module is covered under
the GPL? If not, could something like this work?

--- module.h.orig Thu Oct 18 10:56:09 2001
+++ module.h Thu Oct 18 10:58:43 2001
@@ -286,7 +286,11 @@

#define MODULE_LICENSE(license) \
static const char __module_license[] __attribute__((section(".modinfo"))) = \
-"license=" license
+"license=" license; \
+static const char __module_license_blurb[] __attribute__((section(".modinfo"))) = \
+"license_blurb=This module is covered under the GPL v2 or any later version. " \
+"Please see the file COPYING in the toplevel directory of the source archive " \
+"of this module."

/* Define the module variable, and usage macros. */
extern struct module __this_module;

Of course this can still be circumvented by removing that string from
include/linux/module.h, but you'd still be able to identify renegade
modules, since they perpetrate as GPL'd modules.

M. R.
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:08    [W:0.073 / U:0.908 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site