[hsflinux] driver problem

[jon787 at myrealbox.com]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 05:49:19PM -0500, Marc Boucher wrote:
> 
> Hi Jon,
> 
> On Feb 27, 2004, at 1:23 PM, Jon wrote:
> 
> >As far as I know your drivers are under the license listed at
> >http://www.linuxant.com/drivers/license.php
> >So I was really curious when I installed them and didn't get a warning
> >message about 'tainting' my kernel like I get when I install the nvidia
> >graphics drivers.
> >
> >The tainted kernel warning occurs whenever you load a module that is 
> >not
> >GPL'd into the kernel. This is done by string comparison on the
> >MODULE_LICENSE string in the module.
> >
> >Here is that section from mod_engine.c
> >MODULE_LICENSE("GPL\0for files in the \"GPL\" directory; for others,
> >only LICENSE file applies");
> >
> 
> As the MODULE_LICENSE says, some distinct files (specifically those 
> under the GPL directory) are released under the GPL. This is mentioned 
> in the driver's README file:
> 
> "Most files in this package are released under terms described in
> the LICENSE file. Some distinct components, located in the
> modules/GPL directory however are covered by the GNU General Public 
> License.
> See the files LICENSE and modules/GPL/COPYING for details."
> 
> The components are distinct in the sense that they are isolated from 
> the core softmodem driver, which essentially consists of independently 
> developed/licensed code ported from Windows that we do not even own.
> 
> Full source for GPL/ed files is of course included in our tar.gz, 
> generic RPM, and .debs packages.
> 

I know that

> >Looks okay, until you notice the pesky null character stuck in it.
> >As any C programmer will tell you, the end of a string is marked by a
> >null character. So the effective string in MODULE_LICENSE is only 
> >"GPL".
> 
> The \0 is in fact just a workaround to prevent repetitive messages 
> generated by the modutils when attempting to load several modules when 
> probing for each hardware type. These messages were very confusing for 
> ordinary users who often thought that their device was not working when 
> in fact everything was fine.
> 

It is a bad workaround that causes your modules to mis-represent
themselves to the operating system.

> 
> >While personally I think this is a nice trick, I doubt Torvalds and/or
> >Stallman would agree. I will wait a week for a response on this mailing
> >list before asking them what they think of it.
> 
> Why not instead ask the modutils maintainer(s) for a way to attenuate 
> the confusing/redundant messages and make the workaround unnecessary 
> (we'll be glad to remove it if it is no longer needed), instead of 
> launching a futile debate that will detract attention and scarce 
> resources that are much more needed & constructively spent in technical 
> areas?
>

Nvidia and ATI don't do it.
Anyway modutils is dead, replaced by module-init-tools for 2.5.48
kernels and above. I'm not sure if module-init-tools reports the tainted
status to the terminal, I haven't loaded any tainted modules with it but
running strings on the binaries doesn't show the word "taint" appearing
in them so they probably don't.

> 
> We're trying to deliver much needed drivers for Linux users with a 
> practical approach, in a way that reasonably satisfies all of the 
> different interests involved (hardware manufacturers, the community's, 
> our own obligations and necessity to be financially viable to survive 
> etc..). Presently we have a fragile, but working balance, which might 
> not be maintainable if one party starts making life too difficult..
> 
> Regards
> Marc
> 

To quote your own website:
"Integrity - We employ the highest ethical standards in every action we
take, starting with each other."

(and it isn't necessary to send replies to me and the list, I'm on the
list)
-- 
Jon
http://tesla.resnet.mtu.edu
"I don't care to belong to any organization that accepts
 me as a member." -- Groucho Marx