From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@kernel.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>,
Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] module: Cure the MODULE_LICENSE "GPL" vs. "GPL v2" bogosity
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 06:27:03 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190129052703.GA9753@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1901282105450.1669@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 11:38:42PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> The original MODULE_LICENSE string for kernel modules licensed under the
> GPL v2 (only / or later) was simply "GPL", which was - and still is -
> completely sufficient for the purpose of module loading and checking
> whether the module is free software or proprietary.
>
> In January 2003 this was changed with commit 3344ea3ad4b7 ("[PATCH]
> MODULE_LICENSE and EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL support"). This commit can be found in
> the history git repository which holds the 1:1 import of Linus' bitkeeper
> repository:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git/commit/?id=3344ea3ad4b7c302c846a680dbaeedf96ed45c02
>
> The main intention of the patch was to refuse linking proprietary modules
> against symbols exported with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() at module load time.
>
> As a completely undocumented side effect it also introduced the distinction
> between "GPL" and "GPL v2" MODULE_LICENSE() strings:
>
> * "GPL" [GNU Public License v2 or later]
> * "GPL v2" [GNU Public License v2]
> * "GPL and additional rights" [GNU Public License v2 rights and more]
> * "Dual BSD/GPL" [GNU Public License v2
> * or BSD license choice]
> * "Dual MPL/GPL" [GNU Public License v2
> * or Mozilla license choice]
>
> This distinction was and still is wrong in several aspects:
>
> 1) It broke all modules which were using the "GPL" string in the
> MODULE_LICENSE() already and were licensed under GPL v2 only.
>
> A quick license scan over the tree at that time shows that at least 480
> out of 1484 modules have been affected by this change back then. The
> number is probably way higher as this was just a quick check for
> clearly identifiable license information.
>
> There was exactly ONE instance of a "GPL v2" module license string in
> the kernel back then - drivers/net/tulip/xircom_tulip_cb.c which
> otherwise had no license information at all. There is no indication
> that the change above is any way related to this driver. The change
> happend with the 2.4.11 release which was on Oct. 9 2001 - so quite
> some time before the above commit. Unfortunately there is no trace on
> the intertubes to any discussion of this.
>
> 2) The dual licensed strings became ill defined as well because following
> the "GPL" vs. "GPL v2" distinction all dual licensed (or additional
> rights) MODULE_LICENSE strings would either require those dual licensed
> modules to be licensed under GPL v2 or later or just be unspecified for
> the dual licensing case. Neither choice is coherent with the GPL
> distinction.
>
> Due to the lack of a proper changelog and no real discussion on the patch
> submission other than a few implementation details, it's completely unclear
> why this distinction was introduced at all. Other than the comment in the
> module header file exists no documentation for this at all.
>
> From a license compliance and license scanning POV this distinction is a
> total nightmare.
Many thanks for digging through all of this, it should help out a lot:
Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-29 5:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-28 22:38 [PATCH][RFC] module: Cure the MODULE_LICENSE "GPL" vs. "GPL v2" bogosity Thomas Gleixner
2019-01-29 1:32 ` Joe Perches
2019-01-29 5:27 ` Greg KH [this message]
2019-01-29 13:06 ` Jessica Yu
2019-01-29 14:11 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-01-30 20:48 ` Alan Cox
2019-01-30 21:47 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-02-07 0:21 ` Jonathan Corbet
2019-02-08 16:02 ` [PATCH v2] " Thomas Gleixner
2019-02-09 9:37 ` Philippe Ombredanne
2019-02-09 12:11 ` Greg KH
2019-02-10 18:58 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-02-11 15:19 ` Jonathan Corbet
2019-02-11 8:44 ` Jessica Yu
2019-01-30 5:01 ` [PATCH][RFC] " Rusty Russell
2019-01-30 18:21 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-01-30 20:45 ` Alan Cox
2019-01-30 22:00 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-01-31 15:18 ` Philippe Ombredanne
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190129052703.GA9753@kroah.com \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jeyu@kernel.org \
--cc=kstewart@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pombredanne@nexb.com \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).