Re: [PATCH 0/2] module: Block modules by Tuxedo from accessing GPL symbols

[Werner Sembach]

Hello Uwe,

Am 16.11.24 um 18:49 schrieb Uwe Kleine-König:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 12:14:16PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On 11/14/24 11:49, Werner Sembach wrote:
> > > Am 14.11.24 um 11:31 schrieb Uwe Kleine-König:
> > > > the kernel modules provided by Tuxedo on
> > > > https://gitlab.com/tuxedocomputers/development/packages/tuxedo-drivers
> > > > are licensed under GPLv3 or later. This is incompatible with the
> > > > kernel's license and so makes it impossible for distributions and other
> > > > third parties to support these at least in pre-compiled form and so
> > > > limits user experience and the possibilities to work on mainlining these
> > > > drivers.
> > > >
> > > > This incompatibility is created on purpose to control the upstream
> > > > process. See https://fosstodon.org/@kernellogger/113423314337991594 for
> > > > a nice summary of the situation and some further links about the issue.
> > > >
> > > > Note that the pull request that fixed the MODULE_LICENSE invocations to
> > > > stop claiming GPL(v2) compatibility was accepted and then immediately
> > > > reverted "for the time being until the legal stuff is sorted out"
> > > > (https://gitlab.com/tuxedocomputers/development/packages/tuxedo-
> > > > drivers/-/commit/a8c09b6c2ce6393fe39d8652d133af9f06cfb427).
> > > As already being implied by that commit message, this is sadly not an
> > > issue that can be sorted out over night.
> > >
> > > We ended up in this situation as MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") on its own does
> > > not hint at GPL v2, if one is not aware of the license definition table
> > > in the documentation.
> > That statement isn't consistent with you saying to pick GPLv3 as an
> > explicitly incompatible license to control the mainlining process. So you
> > knew that it's legally at least questionable to combine these licenses.
> When I wrote this mail I missed the possibility that while Werner knew
> GPLv3 isn't ok for in-kernel code might still have considered GPLv3 ok
> for external modules anyhow.
>
> So I take back what I said and excuse me for my words. They were not
> intended as harsh as Werner obviously took them, but still I regret
> having written my reply with this suggestion.
>
> I'm sorry,
> Uwe
Thank you very much for these words.

I hope that in my replies I wasn't too harsh from my side and if so, I 
too want to apologize for it.

No more bad feelings going forward.

Best regards,

Werner Sembach