I couldn't help but notice that the Linuxant Modem drivers appear to be
GPL'd, as a strings of the modules shows that License=GPL.
Therefor, it seems to be O.K. to send this script out to unlock them.
Perhaps the script should be GPL'd.
Attached is a perl script that generates the keys to the GPL'd Linuxant
Modem Drivers for HCF and HSF modems.
Please do not use this script on Non-GPL'd modules ;-)
As that would clearly be illegal.
--
Chad Christopher Giffin
mailto:[email protected]
There are 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand
binary and those who do not. -- Anonymous
Chad Christopher Giffin wrote:
> I couldn't help but notice that the Linuxant Modem drivers appear to be
> GPL'd, as a strings of the modules shows that License=GPL.
There was a huge discussion about this in April. You should check this
thread:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=108303207819170&w=2
Always search the archives before posting to LKML ;)
--
Paulo Marques - http://www.grupopie.com
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 12:18 +0100, Paulo Marques wrote:
> Chad Christopher Giffin wrote:
> > I couldn't help but notice that the Linuxant Modem drivers appear to be
> > GPL'd, as a strings of the modules shows that License=GPL.
>
> There was a huge discussion about this in April. You should check this
> thread:
>
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=108303207819170&w=2
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. :-)
> Always search the archives before posting to LKML ;)
Yes, I see why.
Well then, it appears as though I have made a mistake which therefore
warrants a public request that:
Any recipients of my email to the Linux Kernel Mailing List, which had
attachment "keygen.pl" for generating keys for Linuxant HCF/HSF modem
drivers, are all hereby requested to ignore said email, save for the
purpose of its immediate removal, and take notice that the Linuxant
drivers are in fact covered by a non-GPL, commercial license. Use of
that script would be illegal.
I still find myself deeply troubled and questioning the legalities of
using "GPL\0[...]" in the license string of a non-GPL module. As it is
a blatant lie.
A string is used to represent ASCII characters, normally. And this is
often data that is for human eligibility. Said format of string storage
uses NULL, or \0, as a mark of termination of string.
Therefore such a string implies that the license *is* GPL. Since
the /ONLY/ use of this variable is to mark the license type of the
module, it has been violated by this clear form of abuse.
My apologies to Linuxant for any troubles this misinterpretation of
their lie^H^H^Hhack may have caused.
--
Chad Christopher Giffin
mailto:[email protected]
There are 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand
binary and those who do not. -- Anonymous
On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 06:43 -0600, Chad Christopher Giffin wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 12:18 +0100, Paulo Marques wrote:
> > Chad Christopher Giffin wrote:
> > > I couldn't help but notice that the Linuxant Modem drivers appear to be
> > > GPL'd, as a strings of the modules shows that License=GPL.
> >
if linuxant is still doing this crap... what about putting the \0
checker in the module loader after all....
On Gwe, 2004-10-29 at 13:43, Chad Christopher Giffin wrote:
> I still find myself deeply troubled and questioning the legalities of
> using "GPL\0[...]" in the license string of a non-GPL module. As it is
> a blatant lie.
Oh its almost certainly a criminal offence in the USA - the DMCA for
example. The \0 stupidity checker needs to go into the kernel.
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 02:50:42PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Gwe, 2004-10-29 at 13:43, Chad Christopher Giffin wrote:
> > I still find myself deeply troubled and questioning the legalities of
> > using "GPL\0[...]" in the license string of a non-GPL module. As it is
> > a blatant lie.
>
> Oh its almost certainly a criminal offence in the USA - the DMCA for
> example. The \0 stupidity checker needs to go into the kernel.
Copy protection arms-races are always fun. If we did this, no doubt
some enterprising individual would find that some other value
also has the same effect. You need to throw out anything else
thats non alphanumeric too. (plus '/' for 'Dual BSD/GPL' and friends)
Dave
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 09:00:12PM +0100, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 02:50:42PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Gwe, 2004-10-29 at 13:43, Chad Christopher Giffin wrote:
> > > I still find myself deeply troubled and questioning the legalities of
> > > using "GPL\0[...]" in the license string of a non-GPL module. As it is
> > > a blatant lie.
> >
> > Oh its almost certainly a criminal offence in the USA - the DMCA for
> > example. The \0 stupidity checker needs to go into the kernel.
>
> Copy protection arms-races are always fun. If we did this, no doubt
> some enterprising individual would find that some other value
> also has the same effect. You need to throw out anything else
> thats non alphanumeric too. (plus '/' for 'Dual BSD/GPL' and friends)
Use Pascal-like strings then. I see no way to fake them.
Willy
Dave Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 02:50:42PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Gwe, 2004-10-29 at 13:43, Chad Christopher Giffin wrote:
> > > I still find myself deeply troubled and questioning the legalities of
> > > using "GPL\0[...]" in the license string of a non-GPL module. As it is
> > > a blatant lie.
> >
> > Oh its almost certainly a criminal offence in the USA - the DMCA for
> > example. The \0 stupidity checker needs to go into the kernel.
>
> Copy protection arms-races are always fun. If we did this, no doubt
> some enterprising individual would find that some other value
> also has the same effect. You need to throw out anything else
> thats non alphanumeric too. (plus '/' for 'Dual BSD/GPL' and friends)
>
How about 'GPL\rMy real license'? Which means: yes, you're absolutely right.
--
Andreas Steinmetz SPAMmers use [email protected]
On Friday 29 October 2004 22:37, you wrote:
> Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 02:50:42PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Oh its almost certainly a criminal offence in the USA - the DMCA for
> > > example. The \0 stupidity checker needs to go into the kernel.
> >
> > Copy protection arms-races are always fun. If we did this, no doubt
> > some enterprising individual would find that some other value
> > also has the same effect. You need to throw out anything else
> > thats non alphanumeric too. (plus '/' for 'Dual BSD/GPL' and friends)
>
> How about 'GPL\rMy real license'? Which means: yes, you're absolutely
> right.
Not that I care, but wouldn't a simple _licence_length field solve this?
Gnight,
Kenneth
Kenneth Aafl?y wrote:
> On Friday 29 October 2004 22:37, you wrote:
>
>>Dave Jones wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 02:50:42PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
>>> > Oh its almost certainly a criminal offence in the USA - the DMCA for
>>> > example. The \0 stupidity checker needs to go into the kernel.
>>>
>>>Copy protection arms-races are always fun. If we did this, no doubt
>>>some enterprising individual would find that some other value
>>>also has the same effect. You need to throw out anything else
>>>thats non alphanumeric too. (plus '/' for 'Dual BSD/GPL' and friends)
>>
>>How about 'GPL\rMy real license'? Which means: yes, you're absolutely
>>right.
>
>
> Not that I care, but wouldn't a simple _licence_length field solve this?
I don't think that a length filed is sufficient. The above example would
print out on a standard terminal as 'My real license'. To prevent
license string abuse a quite short (less than 80 characters) length
limit and restriction to simple printable (i.e. 0x20-0x7e ASCII)
characters is required.
I would prefer that modules not obeying these restrictions can't be
loaded into the kernel.
--
Andreas Steinmetz SPAMmers use [email protected]