From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: joakim@verona.se Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: code signing with foreign function interface? Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 20:19:38 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87y6i4xg7y.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87bpf0t3am.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1267989598 2837 80.91.229.12 (7 Mar 2010 19:19:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 19:19:58 +0000 (UTC) Cc: David Kastrup , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Mar 07 20:19:53 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NoM12-0000lg-Bt for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 07 Mar 2010 20:19:52 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52545 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NoM11-0000mS-ND for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 07 Mar 2010 14:19:51 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NoM0x-0000mN-VM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Mar 2010 14:19:47 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=47549 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NoM0v-0000m0-1M for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Mar 2010 14:19:46 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NoM0u-0003Kt-Ig for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Mar 2010 14:19:44 -0500 Original-Received: from iwfs.imcode.com ([82.115.149.64]:41570 helo=gate.verona.se) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NoM0s-0003KX-CB; Sun, 07 Mar 2010 14:19:42 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost.localdomain (IDENT:1005@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gate.verona.se (8.13.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id o27JJcPO002928; Sun, 7 Mar 2010 20:19:39 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87bpf0t3am.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> (Stephen J. Turnbull's message of "Mon, 08 Mar 2010 03:06:09 +0900") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.90 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:121713 Archived-At: "Stephen J. Turnbull" writes: > joakim@verona.se writes: > > > - Emacs FFI loads the dll and checks that the desired licensed text in > > binary form is present, and then proceeds to use the dll. If the text > > is not present, refuse to proceed. > > I don't understand what you hope to accomplish with this. On the one > side, I don't see how this prevents infringing binary distributions. > One who is violating the GPL anyway is unlikely to deliberately > *remove* the key which will surely be present in the sample module he > derives his code from. Aparently I totaly suck at explaining this idea. Also I dont quite understand your objection above. > > On the other, it will interfere with private use of DLLs without the > key, which (a) is not restricted at all by the GPL, and (b) is very > likely quite legitimate in the case of older GPLed or LGPLed DLLs (ie, > all that exist today). I didnt mean that existing dynamic linkage would change. I meant to add a new facility. > And if you're serious about a true FFI that can be called from Lisp, > the situation is even worse: very likely the user wishes to call > routines from a library which doesn't know or care that Emacs exists. Yes. The bit about code signing in my other mail was about that. The DLL either is delivered with the signature, or the user can add it. The user shouldnt be able to add it withouth knowing that he is violating the GPL. > So I don't see how it addresses the objections to the use of DLLs > and/or FFI, while noticeably restricting the exercise of rights > granted under the GPL. It shouldnt, AFAICS. -- Joakim Verona