[CentOS-devel] [EXT] Re: RFC: kmods SIG Proposal

Sun May 23 11:14:35 UTC 2021
Neal Gompa <ngompa13 at gmail.com>

On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 6:44 AM redbaronbrowser
<redbaronbrowser at protonmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, May 22, 2021 8:31 PM, Neal Gompa <ngompa13 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 5:51 PM redbaronbrowser via CentOS-devel
> > centos-devel at centos.org wrote:
> >
> > > On Friday, May 21, 2021 8:00 AM, Neal Gompa ngompa13 at gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > The Linux kernel is licensed GPLv2, so all kernel modules need to be
> > > > compatible with that license.
> > >
> > > If only things were that simple.
> > > The linux kernel actually specifies that it's SPDX-License-Identifier is GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note
> > > It continues on to explain this exception to the GPL in the license rules for other licenses documentation. This includes a MODULE_LICENSE() tag for modules to gain or be restricted from EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL().
> > > As far as I can tell, OpenAFS honors the license tag system of the kernel and avoids calling kernel symbols that requires being GPL compatible. As such, it is compatible with the Linux kernel GPLv2 exception/syscall-note.
> >
> > Your understanding is fundamentally wrong. The Linux-syscall-note
> > explicitly does not cover the kernel interface, which is what kernel
> > modules use.
> >
> > I'm not discussing this further, though. I'm just going to say that
> > Red Hat Legal has consistently told Fedora this over the years, and I
> > do not expect this to change for CentOS.
> My understanding is taken from the Linux Developer's mailing list.
> I agree with you that if IBM/Red Hat Legal department has already ruled on this then we shouldn't be including IBM PL covered kernel modules.  However, it would also be nice to have the exact wording from the IBM/RH  Legal department.
> This seems like a next level example of irony when the IBM/RH Legal department says that a IBM/RH sponsor project can't package/distribute a IBM/RH FOSS project because of the license that IBM/RH choose.
> At some point it would be nice if OpenAFS project which is made up mostly of code owned by IBM/RH could acknowledge the issues that IBM/RH Legal department raises and address them so that CentOS, a IBM/RH sponsor project, can distirbute the kernel module someday in the future.

You seem to be under the impression that IBM actually is *doing*
anything with Red Hat on this. They're not. Red Hat and IBM have
separate legal departments entirely. Also, since OpenAFS has had
contributions from folks other than IBM, it's not straightforward to
relicense the project anymore.

真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!