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

Giuliano Colla
2004-05-02T22:28:02Z

Geert Uytterhoeven ha scritto:

>On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Giuliano Colla wrote:
>
>
>>It may make sense not to have anything left in the GPL directory in a
>>binary only .rpm package, because once linked GPL parts cannot be told
>>apart from non-GPL ones.
>>
>>
>
>When speaking about loadable kernel modules: yes they can! That's what
>modinfo(8) is for!
>
>Oh wait, someone played tricks with a \0 character...
>
>Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
>
>
What I mean is that in a binary rpm you have binaries which link
together GPL and non GPL code. There's not such a thing as a GPL
binaries to put in the GPL directory. This holds true whether they play
tricks or not. If you want to see the GPL'd code you must download the
source package.
You may blame them for playing tricks with \0 character, but you can't
blame them for an empty GPL directory in the binary package, when you
find it properly populated in the source package.

Groetje,
-----
Giuliano Colla

Whenever people agree with me, I always feel I must be wrong (O. Wilde)