Messages in this thread | | | From | Marc Boucher <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license | Date | Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:10:08 -0400 |
| |
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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |