Messages in this thread | | | Subject | RE: Driver Model | From | Alan Cox <> | Date | Wed, 03 Sep 2003 15:57:54 +0100 |
| |
On Mer, 2003-09-03 at 15:36, Stuart MacDonald wrote: > If the MODULE_LICENSE() macro is what determines taint, what's to > prevent a company from compiling their driver in their own kernel tree > with that macro and releasing it binary-only? Wouldn't that module > then be taint-free?
They would be representing their module is GPL when its not, obtaining services by deceving people (3rd party support) and if they used _GPL symbols probably violating the DMCA by bypassing a digital rights system.
In practice we've had two cases we know about where someone tried this, one at least was almost certainly an accident the other one the vendor seems to now have fixed after the threat of acute bad publicity.
You could equally ask the same question about any other measure - its no different to "I could shoot the shopkeeper and not pay", its an incentive to behave, a way for developers to make it clear their code isnt for stealing and without denying people the choice of what they run. The reputable vendors on the whole not only seem to obey it but actually put informative MODULE_LICENSE() tags into their code for their proprietary licenses.
Alan
- 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/
| |