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

[Marc Boucher]

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.
http://www.linuxant.com

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/