[lkml]   [2003]   [Sep]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRE: Driver Model
    On Mer, 2003-09-03 at 15:36, Stuart MacDonald wrote:
    > If the MODULE_LICENSE() macro is what determines taint, what's to
    > prevent a company from compiling their driver in their own kernel tree
    > with that macro and releasing it binary-only? Wouldn't that module
    > then be taint-free?

    They would be representing their module is GPL when its not, obtaining
    services by deceving people (3rd party support) and if they used _GPL
    symbols probably violating the DMCA by bypassing a digital rights

    In practice we've had two cases we know about where someone tried this,
    one at least was almost certainly an accident the other one the vendor
    seems to now have fixed after the threat of acute bad publicity.

    You could equally ask the same question about any other measure - its
    no different to "I could shoot the shopkeeper and not pay", its an
    incentive to behave, a way for developers to make it clear their code
    isnt for stealing and without denying people the choice of what they
    run. The reputable vendors on the whole not only seem to obey it but
    actually put informative MODULE_LICENSE() tags into their code for
    their proprietary licenses.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:48    [W:0.019 / U:0.296 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site