Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265121AbUD3QLu (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Apr 2004 12:11:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264674AbUD3QLt (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Apr 2004 12:11:49 -0400 Received: from wirefire.bureaudepost.com ([66.38.187.209]:45471 "EHLO oasis.linuxant.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265120AbUD3QKX (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Apr 2004 12:10:23 -0400 In-Reply-To: <40927417.6040100@nortelnetworks.com> References: <40927417.6040100@nortelnetworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Sean Estabrooks , david@gibson.dropbear.id.au, Jeff Garzik , miller@techsource.com, riel@redhat.com, koke@sindominio.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@osdl.org, Tigran Aivazian , rusty@rustcorp.com.au, paul@wagland.net From: Marc Boucher Subject: Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 12:10:16 -0400 To: Chris Friesen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2463 Lines: 59 Chris, people should, before insulting us publicly or make unsubstantiated claims that we "lie" or engage in "illegal" actions, perhaps consult a lawyer, and simultaneously use the opportunity to enquire about the meaning of "slander". I repeat, the \0 is purely a technical workaround, done without any mischievous intent. Parts of the modules are indeed GPL, and the linked in binary-only modem code isn't. We didn't try to hide anything since the code containing the workaround is open-source, and we even explained back in February the purpose of this workaround on the public hsflinux mailing list, while suggesting that a patch should be sent to effectively take care of the problem. I even apologized to Rusty for not sending that patch ourselves. Cordially Marc On Apr 30, 2004, at 11:43 AM, Chris Friesen wrote: > 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 > > > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/