lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Sep]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: People, not GPL [was: Re: Driver Model]


    On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Timothy Miller wrote:

    >
    >
    > David Schwartz wrote:
    >
    > > However, some people seem to be arguing that the GPL_ONLY symbols are in
    > > fact a license enforcement technique. If that's true, then when they
    > > distribute their code, they are putting additional restrictions not in the
    > > GPL on it. That is a GPL violation.
    >
    > Agreed. GPL_ONLY is not a license restriction. It is a technical issue.

    Technical if and only if it did not remove the functionality of the
    symbol when called.

    Since it remove the ability to call and it work, creates a restriction of
    usaged. Usage being, one calls the function and it works.

    I have not decided yet to expose one of the grossest example of API thieft
    yet, but will do so in time.

    > Binary-only modules are inherently untrustworthy (no open code review)
    > and undebuggable. It is therefore of technical merit to restrict both
    > what they can access in the kernel (GPL_ONLY) and limit how much kernel
    > developers should have to tolerate when they're involved.

    Who cares, it reports a tainted and the community says, thank you have a
    nice day.

    > But beyond this, there are some social issues. If someone finds a way
    > to work around this mechanism, they are breaking things to everyone
    > else's detriment. For a commercial entity to violate the GPL_ONLY
    > barrier is an insult to kernel developers AND to their customers who
    > will have trouble getting problems solved.

    So when is the last time a business sent it problems to LKML to be
    solved? If I were a customer of such a company, I would be gone.

    > So, if a company works around GPL_ONLY, are they violating the GPL
    > license? Probably not. Does that make it OKAY? Probably not.

    GPL_ONLY violate usage, thus it violate GPL.
    Not a hard concept.
    Also what if a company produces a "private gpl" product?
    Open Source to customers but not to the world?

    Nan, nobody would do that silly idea.

    > This is like finding a way to give a user space program access to kernel
    > resources. There are barriers put in place for a REASON because people
    > make mistakes when they write software. If no one did, we wouldn't have
    > any need for memory protection, would we.

    Stop, the laughing hurts "memory protection" "vm" ...

    Cheers,

    Andre

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

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:48    [W:4.023 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site