lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Apr]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:02    [W:0.067 / U:2.384 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site