Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 Apr 2004 16:40:24 -0400 | From | Timothy Miller <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license |
| |
Chris Friesen wrote: > Marc Boucher wrote: > >> >> >> On Apr 27, 2004, at 1:46 PM, Chris Friesen wrote: > > >>> Does your company honestly feel that misleading the module loading >>> tools is actually the proper way to work around the issue of >>> repetitive warning messages? This is blatently misleading and does >>> not reflect well, especially when the "GPL" directory mentioned in >>> the source string is actually empty. >> >> >> >> It is a purely technical workaround. There is nothing misleading to >> the human eye, > > > modinfo reports a GPL license, and the kernel does not report itself as > tainted. That's misleading. > >> and the GPL directory isn't empty; it is included in full in our >> generic .tar.gz, rpm and >> .deb packages. > > > My apologies. I was going on the word of the original poster.
Even that is a violation of the GPL. You can't link closed-source code with GPL code and release it legally.
Binary-only modules are technically a violation of the GPL, but kernel developers have chosen to allow it under tight constraints.
But the building and releasing ANYTHING which is made up of GPL code and closed-source code and released as an atomic unit (not merely agregated on the same medium) is illegal.
- 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/
| |