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

[mSparks]

Precisely. If Nvidia just supplies a patchset to rip these bits out for every main release, there are 100% in the clear.

I just need to download Nvidia's patchset, apply it to the kernel, compile it for use on my distribution, and boom. I get to install Nvidia's drivers properly, and the person who created this "red line" to fuck around with Nvidia gets a giant middle finger to his face.

I doubt nv will need to change anything, someone earlier pointed out these exports do not currently appear to be in use.

What I suspect happened here is some old exports that were used in testing at some point made it into some code nvidia recently released as GPL, and this maintainer lost his shit thinking they were important.

[mdedetrich]

I doubt nv will need to change anything, someone earlier pointed out these exports do not currently appear to be in use.

What I suspect happened here is some old exports that were used in testing at some point made it into some code nvidia recently released as GPL, and this maintainer lost his shit thinking they were important.

Exactly this is what happened, an older NVidia driver (maybe a beta one) did probably use this GPL symbol at some point but the newer drivers don't which makes the entire problem a largely technical one which everyone is overblowing into something which its not.

[jorgepl]

Maybe you should inform yourself instead of playing the part of the jester

Inform me, please.

[jorgepl]

I doubt nv will need to change anything, someone earlier pointed out these exports do not currently appear to be in use.

What I suspect happened here is some old exports that were used in testing at some point made it into some code nvidia recently released as GPL, and this maintainer lost his shit thinking they were important.

I didn't see this. Is it right? Can you point at the source?

[mSparks]

I didn't see this. Is it right? Can you point at the source?

by avis, last post on page 2.

[Grinness]

Inform me, please.

I would suggest you start reading the reporting of the SCO vs IBM saga -- Where SCO went after IBM for UNIX copyright infringement in Linux (and lost)

http://groklaw.net/

You may learn about validity of GPL

[mdedetrich]

I didn't see this. Is it right? Can you point at the source?

You can search compiled binaries (including drivers) for function/symbol calls and at least the latest current Nvidia driver doesn't use the symbol being talked about.

[mSparks]

Exactly this is what happened, an older NVidia driver (maybe a beta one)

I'd say more likely part of a non distribited/non gpl test bench.
In which case this will mainly deteriorate the quality of the future stuff they release as gpl as the test bench gets crippled, while the proprietary stuff suffers no such limitations.

Law of unintended consequences and all that jazz.

[oleid]

This is an unfounded myth that needs to stop. FreeBSD is not "worse" because they have a more liberal license, every single time someone brings up this bullshit that "companies don't contribute to FreeBSD" then get routinely slapped in the face as evidence is shown that in fact companies do contribute back to FreeBSD, i.e. Sony/Netflix has done numerous contributions to the kernel.

It is true that they do contribute back in a world where companies are used to contribute back. Back then, however, the ecosystem was vastly different. Would this change of mindest have become reality without Linux and its licence? We can't know, but I doubt it.

[Khrundel]

These protections the Linux kernel is adding makes it the copyright infringement come under DMCA. DMCA case takes less than 1 year to resolve. The DMCA process is simpler.but there is a problen..

OMG, what a load of BS I've read. You are completely unaware of what you are talking about.
Look, no matter how you hate nv, you can't sit on two chairs. It is either your software is licensed under free license or you have control over it.
GPL2 says everybody have a permission to modify software as long as they ship their changes under same license. Period. This means everybody have a right to get kernel code, modify it whatewer they like and republish modified version under GPL. Including modification which removes "DRM" from kernel. It is that simple. And when those a-holes saing about violation of DMCA, they are just lying, DMCA does not outlaws "DRM" violation per se, it outlaws removal of DRM which is used to protect rights. License comes first, if license gives that right "DRM" stop being DRM and becomes just one caprice of one developers.

You can't simultaneously allow to Kent Overstreet to distribute his fork of kernel with some not yet upstreamed synchronization primitives, used by his filesystem module and not allow nvidia to distribute their kernel fork which have some exports used by their module. Same for the patents, if someone have licensed his patent under GPL, he automatically have licensed same patent to any derived work, any fork. This is a protection added by GNU to avoid capture of free software by some entity which will incorporate into it some patent. Chapter 7 of GPL2 clearly say this. So, if there is some patented code within kernel, which is licensed to linux foundation only, then there is GPL2 violation, it is the linux foundation is violating GPL2 by distributing their kernel without having permission to redistribute patent right on GPL2 terms.

And, at last, I will tell you how to avoid such stupid mistakes in the future. You need to understand what is GPL2 about. It is a license which preserves copyright ownership over code for it's author and allows redistribution and derivatives creation on some condition. It knows nothing about such person as "mainteiner" for example.
So, follow the thought, who is this a-hole Christoph Hellwig? From legal perspective he is an author of several lines of code, no more. Why this moron thinks he can control, which symbols nvidia can use and which not? No reason from legal perspective. He is not the owner of kernel copyright. He is not an employee of owner. He owns only lines of code he have written, but even these lines do not belong him exclusively: he have already gave permission to everyone to use his code. He is nobody, some guy who have access to git repository and this is all. He decides nvidia can use symbol A but not B. Imagine some guy, lets call him John, who have committed one line of code to kernel somewhere in 9x, when there was no module support. John now has a part of ownership to kernel. Have anyone asked John if he agree to allow nvidia access to symbol A? No. So, from Johns perspective, some guy who came to project long after him allows hated nvidia to use John's line of code. And John can't prevent this because he had licensed his code under GPL2. Now imagine, some other guy, Hellstof Christwig, will maintain some other repository, where he will allow nvidia to use both symbols A and B. Can you explain why one of these maintainers have a right to allow nvidia access to A but another have no right to allow access to A and B?

So, why nvidia haven't forked kernel yet? The reason is simple: it is easier for them to circumvent restriction than support their fork. This is just minor inconvenience for some software engineer. But at the moment when Christoph instead of petty dirty tricks will invent some real way to prevent functioning of nvidia cards on linux, either some sponsor, like Redhat for example, will kick him out of project or there will be new kernel, openlin or something like that. Companies who pay for the party will not tolerate when some idiot on their paycheck is preventing their software from working with nvidia workstations and datacenters.