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

Marc Boucher
2004-04-27T18:16:23Z

On Apr 27, 2004, at 1:46 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:

> Marc Boucher wrote:
>
>> On Apr 27, 2004, at 1:25 PM, Adam Jaskiewicz wrote:
>
>>> Would it not be better to simply place a notice in the readme
>>> explaining what
>>> the error messages mean, rather than working around the liscense
>>> checking
>>> code? Educate the users, rather than fibbing.
>> Good idea. We will try to clarify the matter in the docs for the next
>> release.
>> A lot of users don't read them though, so a proper fix remains
>> necessary..
>
> 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,
and the GPL directory isn't empty; it is included in full in our
generic .tar.gz, rpm and
.deb packages.

Marc

--
Marc Boucher
President
Linuxant inc.