Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266517AbUJROJ4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:09:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266547AbUJROJ4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:09:56 -0400 Received: from chaos.analogic.com ([204.178.40.224]:7296 "EHLO chaos.analogic.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266517AbUJROJr (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:09:47 -0400 Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:09:14 -0400 (EDT) From: "Richard B. Johnson" Reply-To: root@chaos.analogic.com To: Matthew Garrett cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Fw: signed kernel modules? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <27277.1097702318@redhat.com> <1097843492.29988.6.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <200410151153.08527.gene.heskett@verizon.net> <1097857049.29988.29.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <1097860121.13633.358.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> <1097873791.5119.10.camel@krustophenia.net> <20041015211809.GA27783@kroah.com> <4170426E.5070108@nortelnetworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2795 Lines: 82 On Mon, 18 Oct 2004, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Richard B. Johnson wrote: > >> If the whole module license issue is truly one of being able >> to review the source, then certainly nobody would fear the >> inclusion of a "PUBLIC" license string. This would fit the >> broad classification of publicly-available sources, not >> necessarily just in the "Public domain". For instance, when >> a company puts the sources for some driver on it's Web Page, >> but doesn't want to have anything to do with Mr. Stallman. > > This potentially leds to arguments about whether developers who have > seen your publically available code are then tainted. If you don't want Tainted??? Tainted to what. The stated reason for having module- license strings in kernel modules was to save developers from having to locate "bugs" that were caused by proprietary modules for which there was no source-code available. Now, you say that if somebody were to review publicly-available source-code, they become tainted? This is unmitigated political bullshit. > anything to do with Mr. Stallman, why not just use a BSD-style license? > > -- > Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.linux-rutgers.kernel@srcf.ucam.org > Because it doesn't allow "BSD"! Also, even my mailer doesn't like the patch!!! Here it is again.... --- linux-2.6.8/kernel/module.c.orig 2004-10-18 08:21:28.000000000 -0400 +++ linux-2.6.8/kernel/module.c 2004-10-18 08:37:19.000000000 -0400 @@ -48,6 +48,18 @@ #define ARCH_SHF_SMALL 0 #endif +/* + * List of acceptible module-license strings. + */ +static const char *licok[]= { + "GPL", + "GPL v2", + "GPL and additional rights", + "Dual BSD/GPL", + "Dual MPL/GPL", + "PUBLIC" }; + + /* If this is set, the section belongs in the init part of the module */ #define INIT_OFFSET_MASK (1UL << (BITS_PER_LONG-1)) @@ -1362,11 +1374,11 @@ static inline int license_is_gpl_compatible(const char *license) { - return (strcmp(license, "GPL") == 0 - || strcmp(license, "GPL v2") == 0 - || strcmp(license, "GPL and additional rights") == 0 - || strcmp(license, "Dual BSD/GPL") == 0 - || strcmp(license, "Dual MPL/GPL") == 0); + size_t i; + for(i=0; i < sizeof(licok) / sizeof(licok[0]); i++) + if(strcmp(license, licok[i]) == 0) + return 1; + return 0; } static void set_license(struct module *mod, const char *license) Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.6.8 on an i686 machine (5537.79 BogoMips). Note 96.31% of all statistics are fiction. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/