Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

[Timothy Miller]

Marc Boucher wrote:
>

> In an enterprise, customers always come first. Nonetheless, I don't
> believe that this issue had a significant impact on kernel developers.
> Had their support burden been significantly increased by our products,
> the issue would have come up much sooner.

This has all deteriorated into childish bickering rather than meaningful 
debate.

The problem is that Linuxant or whoever has done something which is 
misleading and violates a tenet of the GPL and the module interface of 
the Linux kernel.

There may be technical reasons which excuse this, but in the end, 
Linuxant needs to correct their (unintentional) error and move on.  In 
this society, if you violate copyright and get caught, you get slammed. 
 You've been caught and slammed.  Fortunately, no one is suing you over 
it.

But spending your time arguing about it rather than making it right is 
only making you look like a jerk.  At this point, no one cares about 
your excuses for why you did it -- excuses accepted, technical reasons 
understood, we don't blame you for what you did in the PAST.

If I were in your position, I would say, "I'm sorry.  I understand the 
problem, and I will fix it as soon as possible."  THAT would be a 
professional and ethical thing to do.  It's also a good way to get on 
the GOOD side of the Linux community.  Everyone makes mistakes; what 
matters is how they DEAL with those mistakes.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/