Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751786AbWLQUty (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Dec 2006 15:49:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751799AbWLQUtx (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Dec 2006 15:49:53 -0500 Received: from mtl.rackplans.net ([69.90.0.18]:37236 "EHLO mtl.rackplans.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751786AbWLQUtw (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Dec 2006 15:49:52 -0500 X-Greylist: delayed 1603 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Sun, 17 Dec 2006 15:49:52 EST Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 15:23:07 -0500 (EST) From: Gerhard Mack X-X-Sender: gmack@mtl.rackplans.net To: Dave Jones cc: Linus Torvalds , Willy Tarreau , karderio , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, support@ati.com Subject: Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19] In-Reply-To: <20061216183301.GA14286@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <1166226982.12721.78.camel@localhost> <1166236356.12721.142.camel@localhost> <20061216064344.GF24090@1wt.eu> <20061216164947.GB31013@1wt.eu> <20061216183301.GA14286@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3506 Lines: 80 On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Dave Jones wrote: > 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. You would think ATI's steaming pile of crap would be a good reason for them to give up on the whole binary module thing and just release specs so someone else can write a decent driver. I made the mistake of purchasing an ATI X1600. No open kernel driver.. no open X driver. The ATI drivers don't even complile on amd64 on any recent kernel and their X drivers are prone to random screen corruption that requires nothing less than a full reboot to clear. IMO let those morons keep writing themselves into a corner with this crud and then perhapse they will see for themselves that binary modules are a horribly bad idea instead of having someone else to blame when this whole thing finally fails. Gerhard -- Gerhard Mack gmack@innerfire.net <>< As a computer I find your faith in technology amusing. - 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/