[bug#50347] [RFC PATCH] lint: Warn about kernel modules with a suspect license.

[bug#50347] [RFC PATCH] lint: Warn about kernel modules with a suspect license.

[Maxime Devos]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 991 bytes --]

X-Debbugs-CC: guix-devel@gnu.org

[CC'ing guix-devel@gnu.org because a wider audience seems in order?]

Hi guix,

This patch adds a 'suspect-license' linter detecting some suspicious
values in the license fields of linux modules:

gnu/packages/file-systems.scm:1317:13: zfs@2.1.0: license appears incompatible with the Linux kernel
gnu/packages/linux.scm:1185:13: acpi-call-linux-module@1.2.1: license appears incompatible with the Linux kernel
gnu/packages/linux.scm:8205:15: ttyebus-linux-module@1.5-0.fe4332a: license appears incompatible with the Linux kernel

For zfs, the issue is the CDDL license.  For the others, the issue
is the gpl3+ license.  See the article by the SFLC for why this linter
detets ZFS:

<https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/#footnote-other-ZFS-copyright-holders>.

I wrote a little about the CDDL-GPL incompatibility issue
(most likely a GPL violation?) at <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/45692#43>.

Greetings,
Maxime.

[-- Attachment #1.2: 0001-lint-Warn-about-kernel-modules-with-a-suspect-licens.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 2736 bytes --]

From 851cf20b7d5aed45c3331781afef8de3961f4bb4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2021 23:30:15 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] lint: Warn about kernel modules with a suspect license.

* guix/lint.scm
  (check-suspect-license): New linter.
  (%local-checkers)[suspect-license]: Register it.
---
 guix/lint.scm | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)

diff --git a/guix/lint.scm b/guix/lint.scm
index ffd3f7007e..3a7f3be327 100644
--- a/guix/lint.scm
+++ b/guix/lint.scm
@@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
   #:use-module (guix store)
   #:autoload   (guix base16) (bytevector->base16-string)
   #:use-module (guix base32)
+  #:use-module (guix build-system)
   #:use-module (guix diagnostics)
   #:use-module (guix download)
   #:use-module (guix ftp-client)
@@ -1347,6 +1348,31 @@ of the propagated inputs it pulls in."
       (make-warning package (G_ "invalid license field")
                     #:field 'license)))))
 
+(define (check-suspect-license package)
+  "Warn about suspicious license combinations in PACKAGE."
+  ;; Use 'build-system-name' instead of comparing the build
+  ;; system directly with 'linux-module-build-system' to avoid
+  ;; loading (guix build-system linux-module) when no Linux modules
+  ;; are linted.
+  (define linux-module?
+    (eq? 'linux-module
+         (build-system-name (package-build-system package))))
+  ;; This has plenty of false negatives and should
+  ;; have very few false positives.
+  (define gpl2-only-incompatible?
+    ;; The Linux kernel is GPL-2-only, so GPL3 and later are out.
+    ;; The GPL and CDDL appear to be incompatible, see
+    ;; <https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/>
+    ;; and <https://www.fsf.org/licensing/zfs-and-linux>.
+    (memq (package-license package)
+          (list gpl3 gpl3+ cddl1.0)))
+  (if (and linux-module? gpl2-only-incompatible?)
+      (list
+       (make-warning package
+                     (G_ "license appears incompatible with the Linux kernel")
+                     #:field 'license))
+      '()))
+
 (define (current-vulnerabilities*)
   "Like 'current-vulnerabilities', but return the empty list upon networking
 or HTTP errors.  This allows network-less operation and makes problems with
@@ -1762,6 +1788,10 @@ them for PACKAGE."
      (description "Make sure the 'license' field is a <license> \
 or a list thereof")
      (check       check-license))
+   (lint-checker
+     (name        'suspect-license)
+     (description "Detect some suspect combinations of licenses")
+     (check       check-suspect-license))
    (lint-checker
      (name        'optional-tests)
      (description "Make sure tests are only run when requested")
-- 
2.33.0


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

Re: [bug#50347] [RFC PATCH] lint: Warn about kernel modules with a suspect license.

[Maxime Devos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 166 bytes --]

I've discussed this with dstolfa on IRC:
https://logs.guix.gnu.org/guix/2021-09-02.log#234707
https://logs.guix.gnu.org/guix/2021-09-03.log

Greetings,
Maxime.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

Re: [bug#50347] [RFC PATCH] lint: Warn about kernel modules with a suspect license

[raid5atemyhomework]

Hi list,

I hope this topic gets attention.  As far as I can tell, this is a blocker against 45692 getting merged.

I am already annoyed enough with 45692 (it has been about half a year or so since submitted) and will not prioritize updating the patch until I can expect the CDDL-GPL incompatibility issue to be resolved somehow.  Thank you to Maxime Devos for at least reviewing the final key patch to *start* ZFS support.

I know a few people have asked me for help in getting ZFS working on *their* Guix systmes; I really hope they can speak up on public forums so that others know that ZFS support on Guix is desired by more than just me.  Honestly, the only reason I use Guix is because this is the only FSF-recommended distribution with a recent ZFS available (I know how to code in Scheme, but only in anger; I prefer C++ or Haskell); but if Guix removes ZFS, I would rather install a non-FSF-recommended distribution than lose more of my homework to lousy RAID5 implementations.

Thanks
raid5atemyhomework

Re: [bug#50347] [RFC PATCH] lint: Warn about kernel modules with a suspect license.

[zimoun]

Hi Maxime,

On Thu, 02 Sep 2021 at 23:42, Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be> wrote:

> This patch adds a 'suspect-license' linter detecting some suspicious
> values in the license fields of linux modules:

I do not know if it is worth to add a linter for really few corner
cases, IMHO.

> For zfs, the issue is the CDDL license.  For the others, the issue
> is the gpl3+ license.  See the article by the SFLC for why this linter
> detets ZFS:
>
> <https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/#footnote-other-ZFS-copyright-holders>.

The issue is about distributing binaries, IIUC.  From my point of view,
a such linter should check X-license packages using any build-system but
“linked“ to incompatible X-license packages.  Well, I do not know if it
is worth to automate this since it appears to me really sparse corner
cases.

Cheers,
simon