Re: Linux-2.6.12

[Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 07:36:21AM -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
 > On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Dave Jones wrote:
 > 
 > >On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 07:17:55AM -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
 > >
 > >> >> Bullshit. The source is available to anybody who wants it.
 > >> >Great. Then please explain why you pull off this kind of crap..
 > >> >(DataLink/license.c)
 > >> Because it's true.
 > >
 > >kernel/module.c:1259 disagrees with you.
 > >
 > >static inline int license_is_gpl_compatible(const char *license)
 > >{
 > >   return (strcmp(license, "GPL") == 0
 > >       || strcmp(license, "GPL v2") == 0
 > >       || strcmp(license, "GPL and additional rights") == 0
 > >       || strcmp(license, "Dual BSD/GPL") == 0
 > >       || strcmp(license, "Dual MPL/GPL") == 0);
 > >}
 > >
 > >> >MODULE_LICENSE("GPL\0 They won't allow GPL/BSD anymore!");
 > >
 > >AFAICS, this is just plain deception. I suggest reading
 > >http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=108304056922350&w=2
 > >especially the part about talking to lawyers.
 > >
 > >		Dave
 > >
 > 
 > At the time the work-around was inserted it was FACT.

According to the RCS file in the tarball you sent, license.c
was written on 2004.11.09.16.54.17;
It most certainly was around back then.

 > I don't
 > spend my time rewriting license strings to accommodate the
 > whims of the latest GPL fanatic, thank you.

So I see. So instead you subvert the checks instead.

btw, text like this..

 *     #                   C O N F I D E N T I A L                      #
 *     #  The information contained  in or upon  this document  is the  #
 *     #  property  of  Analogic Corporation and  is considered to  be  #
 *     #  proprietary  and  may  not  be used by any recipient without  #
 *     #  the specific written permission of Analogic Corporation.      #

Just fills me with confidence about the GPL'd nature of this driver.

Due to the "C O N F I D E N T I A L" nature of this driver, I've stopped
reading. Pity, datalink.c was quite amusing.

 *  Changed a lot of code to accommodate the stupid and sometimes
 *  downright wrong changes to the Linux kernel that occurred in
 *  Version 2.6.n.
 *
 *  Yes. It's broken. I had to hard-code a bunch of stuff using
 *  "#define" where previously the kernel provided a logical
 *  value.



		Dave

-
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/