Linux 6.6 To Better Protect Against The Illicit Behavior Of NVIDIA's Proprietary Driver

[oiaohm]

Alternatively, they could simply continue tracking upstream and maintain a patchset for each kernel release that rips out or undo all these nonsensical traps. This bullshit is seldom updated, so there the maintenance burden for said patchset should be considerably low. Those of us who want to use the Nvidia drivers can simply grab the latest release from kernel.org, apply the patchset, compile it and we are good to go.

That patch set would last less than 24 hours before DCMA take-down notice.

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/

Given that symbol_get was only ever inteded for tightly cooperating
modules using very internal symbols it is logical to restrict it to
being used on EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL and prevent nvidia from costly DMCA
circumvention of access controls law suites.

The warning is written in the patch.

Sonadow remember Nvidia expects when they license a party to use Nvidia patents they expect the license obeyed exactly to the letter with no allowance for any alteration. If Nvidia triggers a DMCA case say good by to all your closed source Linux Nvidia drivers. Nvidia has never release one that did not use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL at some point.

Don't suggest DMCA technical protection measure circumvention in this case because if Nvidia does that and get prosecuted the result is major disaster for users.

[zexelon]

oiaohm This really has nothing to do with patents. Copywrite perhaps, but not patents. This is more or less a fundamentalist holy war between GPL proselytes and the cooperate heathens who they believe should bend to their understanding of reality.

In reality though the world doesn't work like the GPL zealots would wish. They have to yield to the money, even the zealots are not willing to completely starve themselves. This is a pointless never ending back and forth between Nvidia and a couple of fundamentalist kernel devs.

Really Nvidia should just fork the kernel. We have "Libre kernel" can we now have "Capital kernel" where all firmware is baked in and all this hatred of closed source is baked out?

[fwyzard]

I fully support the ideals of the GPL license

And yet you show time and again that you do not know what that even means.

Honestly, with the amount of money Nvidia is making if they had the desire to do so, they could simply fork the Linux kernel.

What would that change ?
The vast majority of such fork would still be copyrighted by the original developers and licensed under the GPL.

[RejectModernity]

oiaohm This really has nothing to do with patents. Copywrite perhaps, but not patents. This is more or less a fundamentalist holy war between GPL proselytes and the cooperate heathens who they believe should bend to their understanding of reality.

In reality though the world doesn't work like the GPL zealots would wish. They have to yield to the money, even the zealots are not willing to completely starve themselves. This is a pointless never ending back and forth between Nvidia and a couple of fundamentalist kernel devs.

Really Nvidia should just fork the kernel. We have "Libre kernel" can we now have "Capital kernel" where all firmware is baked in and all this hatred of closed source is baked out?

All forks must obey GPL2, your pathetic little "Capital kernel" is already dead. They can fork freebsd though. Also your suggestion to maintain a whole fork of linux just to keep your shitty driver closed is kinda idk delusional?

[zexelon]

And yet you show time and again that you do not know what that even means.



What would that change ?
The vast majority of such fork would still be copyrighted by the original developers and licensed under the GPL.

Yes it would still be GPL, but they would have far more control over the direction that the GPL got implemented.

Or go the Microsoft rout and just make your own custom distro with your own patches applied.

[zexelon]

All forks must obey GPL2, your pathetic little "Capital kernel" is already dead. They can fork freebsd though. Also your suggestion to maintain a whole fork of linux just to keep your shitty driver closed is kinda idk delusional?

Alas it is not dead. GPL2 does not preclude capitalism. GPL3 on the other hand really does... but it is thankfully in the minority.

[jorgepl]

This is very complicated issue, there are cases GPL can be combined with closed source software.

Not a lawyer.

1st. communicaton has to be done on arms lenght - and Nvidia does it by having in between kernel an open source library that communicates with kernel.

2nd. Nvidia driver is seperate program (that is not a question) and isn't distributed in most cases with kernel. Closed source part is also shared between many diffrent systems so you cannot argue it is part of linux as it can function without linux (on freebsd/solaris/windows etc..).

If you made closed source product that integrated tightly with linux (so no arms lenght) and thing only worked on linux and was heavy dependant on linux-only features to achieve its functionality and distributed it with kernel as one product it would be GPL violation.

Thing is even if Nvidia didn't do open source library in between even if they violated GPL on all possible symbols in kernel. They wouldn't violate GPL because they don't distribute GPL code themselves. The person that binds GPL code (linux ) with non GPL code (nvidia driver) is user. You could make a claim that user breaks GPL but he doesn't because he doesn't distribute his system. If user had linux + nvidia and after distributed his system with both of them glued together that could be potential GPL violation, because he distributed GPL code with non GPL closed source compiled by him (not nvidia) against each other.

You could make a also soft claim that Ubuntu installer (or other installers) that allow you installing linux kernel with nvidia driver do potentially violate GPL. But it is much softer case as decision yes/no is done by user so user compiles stuff against each other.

skeevy420 's answear above regarding ZFS also applies to Nvidia. GPL doesn't care if your code is open source or closed source, - what it has to be is GPL compatible. ZFS not being GPL compatible cannot be distributed together with kernel. Nvidia not being GPL compatible cannot be distributed as well together with kernel.

Well said. Lots of activists here care more about politics than freedom. It's sad that Linux developers are in this fight.

[gnattu]

oiaohm This really has nothing to do with patents. Copywrite perhaps, but not patents. This is more or less a fundamentalist holy war between GPL proselytes and the cooperate heathens who they believe should bend to their understanding of reality.

In reality though the world doesn't work like the GPL zealots would wish. They have to yield to the money, even the zealots are not willing to completely starve themselves. This is a pointless never ending back and forth between Nvidia and a couple of fundamentalist kernel devs.

Really Nvidia should just fork the kernel. We have "Libre kernel" can we now have "Capital kernel" where all firmware is baked in and all this hatred of closed source is baked out?

I remembered that one kernel developer(forgot the name) said something like "if you want to get this merged, you should bring a lawyer and sign the papers" in the Mailing List regarding a patch that exports GPL-modules to Nvidia driver. This happed years ago and such "hostility" could become lawsuits if not handled properly.

Actually hardware vendors have a lot of tricks(sometimes very nasty) to comply with GPL but not want to disclose too much about the implementation. The most common approach is to throw everything into something that is not controlled by the kernel, usually the firmware and the user-space. Such driver ends up being merely a protocol to talk with a proprietary system instead of directly controlling the hardware. The most nasty implementation I've ever seen is the one from Marvell which outright throwing interrupts into userspace. This approach is nasty and bad but hey, this driver is licensed with GPL so that it can be used in kernel.

So yes, GPL helps little on forcing hardware vendors to open-source their drivers, and they will find anyway they can to workaround it. Having a vendor forked kernel is nothing new as we have vendor kernels everywhere on Android phones, arm/risv-v development boards, etc. Such system could even be useless if we don't have a vendor forked kernel because the upstreaming could struggle for years. In addition to the vendor forked kernel, Android provided a mechanism that allows vendors to easily shipping non-GPL drivers and the whole idea of Android is that "we can be as closed we can in the userspace and we are still a good boy in the kernel, totally comply with GPL".

I like the idea of GPL(to some extent as it protects open-source), but in reality, it does not work as well as it should be and not doing what it is intended to do. It does not even prevent RedHat to put their source behind the paywall, let along let those hardware vendors to show how their hardware works.

[oiaohm]

oiaohm This really has nothing to do with patents. Copywrite perhaps, but not patents. This is more or less a fundamentalist holy war between GPL proselytes and the cooperate heathens who they believe should bend to their understanding of reality.

This is wrong like it or not. https://openinventionnetwork.com/joi...nse-agreement/ Lot of patents are licensed to be used by the Linux kernel and its related technologies as long as particular copyright licenses are used. So GPLv2 like it or not part of the patent license agreement that allows you to use a lot of patented technologies with Linux.

Really Nvidia should just fork the kernel. We have "Libre kernel" can we now have "Capital kernel" where all firmware is baked in and all this hatred of closed source is baked out?

The libre kernel is legal because they obey the GPLv2 license also they don't remove these protections.

Or go the Microsoft rout and just make your own custom distro with your own patches applied.

Microsoft in WSL2 and their own internal Linux Distribution even where they don't use Nvidia leave the protections against modules incorrectly using EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL alone because Microsoft not stupid enough to poke a DMCA legal that going to cause a stack of well funded companies who will be like we licensed these patents under GPLv2 to the Linux kernel you removed that code to miss use what we licensed right so we will use DMCA laws to beat the hell out of you.

Alas it is not dead. GPL2 does not preclude capitalism. GPL3 on the other hand really does... but it is thankfully in the minority.

GPLv2 is not that clear with the derivative work clause. Fun part is GPLv2 does not have to be argued in court because this code is a DMCA technical protection measure. Fun point DMCA technical protection measure you have to be able to argue fair usage reason to bipass without that you get pound into the ground.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201

Tell me under the above law zexelon what right does Nvidia or anyone commercial have to remove the code that has been done that enforces EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL? The simple answer no one commercial has the right to remove it.

Like it or not attempting to fork to remove this code is a instance DMCA violation. DMCA is a lot simpler to enforce than GPLv2.

zexelon Linux kenrel/oin patent agreements include GPLv2 remember that. Copyright of the Linux kernel you end up mixed up in patent law as well as DMCA. Thing to remember the companies that license patents to the Linux kernel to use many have big legal departments but they will use the most cost effective section of law to beat the living heck out of anyone doing the wrong thing even if it requires altering the Linux kernel code to-do it.. In this case those companies are lining up to beat the living heck out of Nvidia with DMCA.

Up until this point Nvidia being able to come up with a work around that has avoided the code. But the day Nvidia or any party attempts to remove the code that been added to enforce EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL so their code works at that point they are 100 percent dead instant DMCA take down notices.

[ClosedSource]

Nvidia will eventually endure the same fate as divx and adobe flash. Quite annoying meanwhile, just like those 2 were back then...

You're confusing our feelings towards them with reality. They will be fine. They have enough money to fix things.