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

Chris Friesen
2004-04-30T15:45:27Z

Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
>>DriverLoader significantly lowers that cost, while not providing an open
>>source solution at all.
>
>
> Ah, I see.... that makes a HUGE difference. Now I understand what the fuss
> is all about. So, that is why everyone jumped on Marc Boucher's throat
> trying to annihilate, humiliate, frighten by unsubstantiated allegations
> and generally grind him into tiny specks of dust, at the same time falsely
> pretending that all the fuss was only about that silly '\0' byte they
> left in their license string (I wish they knew better not to do that ---
> there are millions of ways to achieve what they want).

Your statement is unsubstantiated. Many companies try to work around the GPL, or walk very close
(and often over) the fine line of compliance. They want to get something for nothing, because
that's what companies are there for--to make money. There aren't very many altruistic for-profit
companies.

Personally, what sticks in my craw is the fact that this company did something wrong, and then tried
to defend its actions by claiming that it was to make it easier for the customer. That excuse
doesn't wash--what they did was *illegal*. The fact that it also makes it harder to get open-source
drivers is a side effect for me.

Chris