Re: Linux-2.6.12

Dave Jones
2005-06-21T12:00:50Z

On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 07:36:21AM -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Dave Jones wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 07:17:55AM -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> >
> >> >> Bullshit. The source is available to anybody who wants it.
> >> >Great. Then please explain why you pull off this kind of crap..
> >> >(DataLink/license.c)
> >> Because it's true.
> >
> >kernel/module.c:1259 disagrees with you.
> >
> >static inline int license_is_gpl_compatible(const char *license)
> >{
> > return (strcmp(license, "GPL") == 0
> > || strcmp(license, "GPL v2") == 0
> > || strcmp(license, "GPL and additional rights") == 0
> > || strcmp(license, "Dual BSD/GPL") == 0
> > || strcmp(license, "Dual MPL/GPL") == 0);
> >}
> >
> >> >MODULE_LICENSE("GPL\0 They won't allow GPL/BSD anymore!");
> >
> >AFAICS, this is just plain deception. I suggest reading
> >http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=108304056922350&w=2
> >especially the part about talking to lawyers.
> >
> > Dave
> >
>
> At the time the work-around was inserted it was FACT.

According to the RCS file in the tarball you sent, license.c
was written on 2004.11.09.16.54.17;
It most certainly was around back then.

> I don't
> spend my time rewriting license strings to accommodate the
> whims of the latest GPL fanatic, thank you.

So I see. So instead you subvert the checks instead.

btw, text like this..

* # C O N F I D E N T I A L #
* # The information contained in or upon this document is the #
* # property of Analogic Corporation and is considered to be #
* # proprietary and may not be used by any recipient without #
* # the specific written permission of Analogic Corporation. #

Just fills me with confidence about the GPL'd nature of this driver.

Due to the "C O N F I D E N T I A L" nature of this driver, I've stopped
reading. Pity, datalink.c was quite amusing.

* Changed a lot of code to accommodate the stupid and sometimes
* downright wrong changes to the Linux kernel that occurred in
* Version 2.6.n.
*
* Yes. It's broken. I had to hard-code a bunch of stuff using
* "#define" where previously the kernel provided a logical
* value.

Dave