Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

From: Marc Boucher (marc_at_linuxant.com)
Date: 04/30/04

  • Next message: Mikael Pettersson: "[BUG] 2.6.6-rc2-bk5 mm/slab.c change broke x86-64 SMP" 
    Date:	Fri, 30 Apr 2004 12:10:16 -0400
To: Chris Friesen <cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com>

    Chris,

    people should, before insulting us publicly or make unsubstantiated
    claims that we "lie" or engage in "illegal" actions, perhaps consult a
    lawyer, and simultaneously use the opportunity to enquire about the
    meaning of "slander".

    I repeat, the \0 is purely a technical workaround, done without any
    mischievous intent. Parts of the modules are indeed GPL, and the linked
    in binary-only modem code isn't. We didn't try to hide anything since
    the code containing the workaround is open-source, and we even
    explained back in February the purpose of this workaround on the public
    hsflinux mailing list, while suggesting that a patch should be sent to
    effectively take care of the problem. I even apologized to Rusty for
    not sending that patch ourselves.

    Cordially
    Marc

    On Apr 30, 2004, at 11:43 AM, Chris Friesen wrote:

    > Tigran Aivazian wrote:
    >> On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Jeff Garzik wrote:
    >>> DriverLoader significantly lowers that cost, while not providing an
    >>> open source solution at all.
    >> Ah, I see.... that makes a HUGE difference. Now I understand what the
    >> fuss
    >> is all about. So, that is why everyone jumped on Marc Boucher's throat
    >> trying to annihilate, humiliate, frighten by unsubstantiated
    >> allegations
    >> and generally grind him into tiny specks of dust, at the same time
    >> falsely
    >> pretending that all the fuss was only about that silly '\0' byte they
    >> left in their license string (I wish they knew better not to do that
    >> --- there are millions of ways to achieve what they want).
    >
    > Your statement is unsubstantiated. Many companies try to work around
    > the GPL, or walk very close (and often over) the fine line of
    > compliance. They want to get something for nothing, because that's
    > what companies are there for--to make money. There aren't very many
    > altruistic for-profit companies.
    >
    > Personally, what sticks in my craw is the fact that this company did
    > something wrong, and then tried to defend its actions by claiming that
    > it was to make it easier for the customer. That excuse doesn't
    > wash--what they did was *illegal*. The fact that it also makes it
    > harder to get open-source drivers is a side effect for me.
    >
    > Chris
    >
    >
    >

    -
    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/

  • Next message: Mikael Pettersson: "[BUG] 2.6.6-rc2-bk5 mm/slab.c change broke x86-64 SMP"

    Relevant Pages