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

pnutzh4x0r@lemmy.ndlug.org to Linux@lemmy.ml – 805 points – Linux 6.6 To Better Protect Against The Illicit Behavior Of NVIDIA's Proprietary Driver
phoronix.com

Luis Chamberlain sent out the modules changes today for the Linux 6.6 merge window. Most notable with the modules update is a change that better builds up the defenses against NVIDIA's proprietary kernel driver from using GPL-only symbols. Or in other words, bits that only true open-source drivers should be utilizing and not proprietary kernel drivers like NVIDIA's default Linux driver in respecting the original kernel code author's intent.

Back in 2020 when the original defense was added, NVIDIA recommended avoiding the Linux 5.9 for the time being. They ended up having a supported driver several weeks later. It will be interesting to see this time how long Linux 6.6+ thwarts their kernel driver.

259

You are viewing a single comment
View all commentsShow the parent comment

There's an interesting discussion about the whole topic on the Phoronix forums about this. Some people claim that removing them and Nvidia's current behavior is a DMCA violation:

  1. The kernel includes IP only licensed under GPLv2.
  2. While a module linked against the kernel isn't necessarily a derived work which in turn would need to be licensed GPLv2 as well, there are specific interfaces that are meant for internal use and by their very nature would make your work derived if using them. These are the interfaces marked EXPORT_GPL_ONLY.
  3. Using these interfaces with a module not licensed GPLv2, you taint the kernel and violate the licensing.
  4. Removing the check, you aren't necessarily yet violating GPLv2, but you're removing a technical protection measure which is a violation of the DMCA.

It also raises the question why you'd remove checks that only prevent a possible GPLv2 violation if you're not violating GPLv2 anyways as Nvidia claims.

you aren't necessarily yet violating GPLv2, but you're removing a technical protection measure which is a violation of the DMCA.

Isn't overcoming a technical limit a violation itself? That's what made DeCSS illegal. They didn't have to prove anyone was actually copying DVDs with it, just that DeCSS could allow you to copy a DVD

Yes, even if it's a dialog box with only a "No" button, despite how easy it would be to get it to return a different value.

DISCLAIMER: IANAL, this is not legal advice.