Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license
From: Marc Boucher
Date: Wed Apr 28 2004 - 15:11:59 EST
On Apr 28, 2004, at 3:32 PM, Timothy Miller wrote:
Marc Boucher wrote:
I believe you have to remove the \0 to operate legally (or release
the full source under the GPL for real.)
Your customer's problem is fixable though. Either by also changing
the logging level
so the message doesn't go out on the console, or by patching the
line with that printk() out of your customer's kernel.
You can do this as a part of your install program. If it gets too
hard, consider
supplying the customer with your own precompiled kernel.
Thank you for the advice. However, if you knew our customers and
understood their needs better you would realize that these are not
feasible options.
If your only "options" involve violating the GPL, then you cannot do
business in this area.
that's not what I said. What I said is that kernel patches are not an
acceptable temporary workaround for the large installed base of average
customers, since they generally cannot or do not want to bother
recompiling stuff. We still make source for linux code and other parts
required to allow the technically inclined to easily rebuild the
modules and comply with the GPL.
"Someone won't let me release some code" isn't an excuse for breaking
the law.
The proprietary code that cannot be released in source form is
licensed material that was essentially developed by another party
(Conexant) for other platforms. It clearly does not constitute a
derived work of Linux.
Marc
--
Marc Boucher
Linuxant inc.
-
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/