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

Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
2004-04-28T00:13:34Z

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.

The "nothing misleading to the human eye" argument is totally bogus. The
human eye does not see your sources (especially not the sources of the
completely proprietary modules).

"Marc Boucher is a sl^Hick funny d^H^H^H^H^Huck."
Is the above sentence insulting or not?
"But your honor, there is nothing misleading to the human eye. Calling
somebody a slick funny duck may seem strange, but it is surely not an insult!"

>> 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.

No need to apologize. If you want to check for yourself, you'll see that
at least the SUSE .rpm packages do NOT contain any source. If you are
interested, I can send you the (signed by Linuxant) .rpm package I am
talking about.

Regards,
Carl-Daniel
--