Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753770AbWLPSdN (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Dec 2006 13:33:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753771AbWLPSdN (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Dec 2006 13:33:13 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:55694 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753768AbWLPSdM (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Dec 2006 13:33:12 -0500 Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 13:33:01 -0500 From: Dave Jones To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Willy Tarreau , karderio , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19] Message-ID: <20061216183301.GA14286@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , Linus Torvalds , Willy Tarreau , karderio , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1166226982.12721.78.camel@localhost> <1166236356.12721.142.camel@localhost> <20061216064344.GF24090@1wt.eu> <20061216164947.GB31013@1wt.eu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2591 Lines: 59 On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 09:20:15AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Anything else, you have to make some really scary decisions. Can a judge > decide that a binary module is a derived work even though you didn't > actually use any code? The real answer is: HELL YES. It's _entirely_ > possible that a judge would find NVidia and ATI in violation of the GPLv2 > with their modules. ATI in particular, I'm amazed their lawyers OK'd stuff like.. +ifdef STANDALONE MODULE_LICENSE(GPL); +endif This a paraphrased diff, it's been a while since I've seen it. It's GPL if you build their bundled copy of the AGPGART code as agpgart.ko, but the usual use case is that it's built-in to fglrx.ko, which sounds incredibly dubious. Now, AGPGART has a murky past wrt licenses. It initally was imported into the tree with the license "GPL plus additional rights". Nowhere was it actually documented what those rights were, but I'm fairly certain it wasn't to enable nonsense like the above. As it came from the XFree86 folks, it's more likely they really meant "Dual GPL/MIT" or similar. When I took over, any new code I wrote I explicitly set out to mark as GPL code, as my modifications weren't being contributed back to X, they were going back to the Linux kernel. ATI took those AGPv3 modifications from a 2.5 kernel, backported them to their 2.4 driver, and when time came to do a 2.6 driver, instead of doing the sensible thing and dropping them in favour of using the kernel AGP driver, they chose to forward port their unholy abomination to 2.6. It misses so many fixes (and introduces a number of other problems) that its just unfunny. The thing that really ticks me off though is the free support ATI seem to think they're entitled to. I've had end-users emailing me "I asked ATI about this crash I've been seeing with fglrx, and they asked me to mail you". I invest my time into improving free drivers. When companies start expecting me to debug their part binary garbage mixed with license violations, frankly, I think they're taking the piss. A year and a half ago, I met an ATI engineer at OLS, who told me they were going to 'resolve this'. I'm still waiting. I live in hope that the AMD buyout will breathe some sanity into ATI. Then again, I've only a limited supply of optimism. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk - 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/