From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9BE91BB for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 20:20:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [66.63.167.143]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B08F243 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 20:20:06 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1472156400.2448.7.camel@HansenPartnership.com> From: James Bottomley To: Dave Airlie , Josh Triplett Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 16:20:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <20160824130832.GA28564@kroah.com> <1472052583.61594.577.camel@infradead.org> <20160824174724.GE30853@kroah.com> <20160824205011.GA31615@ebb.org> <20160824215447.GA5368@kroah.com> <20160825040619.GA32072@ebb.org> <20160825063707.fcgu3ogqqcun2vmy@thunk.org> <20160825070338.i5g5obwgjamaq7fk@x> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] GPL defense issues List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2016-08-26 at 06:03 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > On 25 August 2016 at 17:03, Josh Triplett > > - EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL and MODULE_LICENSE. I know that some history > > exists suggesting that they've helped with some cases. Do they > > potentially make enforcement more difficult, though? (This also > > includes informal or internal enforcement/compliance efforts; for > > instance, EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL may provide a supporting argument for > > such efforts, but conversely EXPORT_SYMBOL may then hinder such > > efforts.) > > Oh I really wish someone could answer that. I hate _GPL as I believe > it makes it legal to create GPL modules with MODULE_LICENSE, when > really they violate the license just as much if not more. If > something isn't a derivate work for MODULE_LICENSE, but using one > _GPL work somehow makes it one, is insane. Well, having talked to some corporations who are fast and loose with kernel modules: They fear accessing the GPL symbols (by lying about their module licence) because, in the US, their lawyers have advised them that this could be construed as circumventing a technological protection mechanism under the DMCA. I'm not sure I believe that pushing symbols to become GPL only helps because the lawyers now seem to think that open source shims which give access to the symbols are generally OK. > Although I can't attend this year, I think there should be less stop > energy from the senior developers, and more discussion in the only > place it's probably safe to discuss this, in a closed room with no > press, I'm nearly sure this is one of the reasons KS existed in the > first place to have unreportable discussions. > > Everyone who stays in the room can later drink heavily and deny any > knowledge of having been there. That's about what we did last year. Just on that, I would like to remind everyone that last year, we did something fairly similar to what's being proposed and the sky didn't fall ... there may have been a few irritated corporations, but there weren't huge consequences. What I think last year demonstrated was that we could use the forum of the KS to have a useful dissemination of information and I think it's got to be better than simply refusing to talk about it. James