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

Marc Boucher
2004-04-28T20:08:12Z

On Apr 28, 2004, at 3:32 PM, Timothy Miller wrote:

>
>
> Marc Boucher wrote:
>
>>> I believe you have to remove the \0 to operate legally (or release
>>> the full source under the GPL for real.)
>>> Your customer's problem is fixable though. Either by also changing
>>> the logging level
>>> so the message doesn't go out on the console, or by patching the
>>> line with that printk() out of your customer's kernel.
>>> You can do this as a part of your install program. If it gets too
>>> hard, consider
>>> supplying the customer with your own precompiled kernel.
>> Thank you for the advice. However, if you knew our customers and
>> understood their needs better you would realize that these are not
>> feasible options.
>
>
> If your only "options" involve violating the GPL, then you cannot do
> business in this area.

that's not what I said. What I said is that kernel patches are not an
acceptable temporary workaround for the large installed base of average
customers, since they generally cannot or do not want to bother
recompiling stuff. We still make source for linux code and other parts
required to allow the technically inclined to easily rebuild the
modules and comply with the GPL.

> "Someone won't let me release some code" isn't an excuse for breaking
> the law.
>

The proprietary code that cannot be released in source form is
licensed material that was essentially developed by another party
(Conexant) for other platforms. It clearly does not constitute a
derived work of Linux.

Marc

--
Marc Boucher
Linuxant inc.