How does checkpoint qualify in this matter. They sale the splat that is redhat linux. Did anyone requested or got their sources for the splat CD?
Shachar Shemesh wrote: > Ira Abramov wrote: >> This is not exactly a GPL violation, > I'm not sure you are right about this. > > Here's my take on things. The kernel is GPL, which means that all > derived work of it needs to be GPL too, or it is infringing on the > kernel's copyright. > > There are three approaches to understanding binary only modules: > > One is to say that merely using the interface does not make a module > derived work, and therefor the GPL doesn't apply. This claim is backed > up by the fact that interfaces are not considered copyrightable (or else > Wine, Samba and many others would be infringing work, and all user-space > programs would have to be GPL). The way I see it, this true ONLY if the > interface involved is well documented and stable. I believe you will > find that the kernel->module interface is neither. This is also why I > think that creating an "adapter module", that exports a well-documented > stable interface out of the kernel would allow perfectly legal binary > modules. Even if the kernel's interface was stable and documented (or > otherwise defined as "non-derived work"), I highly doubt their trick > uses the interface alone, and so this protection is highly likely not > relevant for this case. > > The second case is to say that the kernel export functions themselves > give permission. It's called "מכלל לאו יוצא הן". If you export 10 > symbols, and you tell me not to touch 3 of them unless I'm GPL, I have a > very good case for claiming that I am allowed to touch the other 7 > (despite all of Muli's claims to the contrary). Here, as before, the > moment their binary module links with symbols that are defined as "GPL > Only", it is, in fact, sidestepping the above permission, and is > infringing on the kernel's copyright. > > The third possibility (which I do not buy into) is to say that there are > no exceptions, and that binary only modules are not allowed. If that is > the case, this is no greater GPL violation, but it certainly is bringing > the copyright disregard to new levels. > > So I think that claiming that this is not a GPL violation is a bit naive. >> What would you do? >> > Now were talking about the real dillema. >> do you just protest but keep working there? >> > It's very easy to say "No!!" when it's someone else's money. It really > depends. If you can afford to lose the client, I'd consider stopping > working with them, but the details really depends. >> make that information public? >> > A professional lives by his/her reputation. You have to let your clients > know that they can trust you not to go behind their back. It may be a > big enough violation for you to stop working with the client, but unless > it's a life threatening neglect, I wouldn't go public with such things. >> Inform lkml how they fooled the kernel without revieling the identity of >> the violators, just to help them patch it for the future? >> > You already did so here, didn't you? > > No, the specifics of how to do the bypass don't really matter. I don't > think anyone has any interest in a cat-and-mouse game such as this. As I > have said above (in the "is this a GPL violation" part), it's the intent > that counts. >> spill the beans on Slashdot? >> > I fail to see what good that will do. >> and what would you do if it was a real GPL violation? >> > I think it is a GPL violation. All my answers above apply. I'd let them > know that, as far as I know, this is a GPL violation. I'll draw their > attention to the fact that they can lose all distribution rights. >> will a signed NDA with that company make a difference in your decision? >> > Absolutely not. I have clients that asked for a signed NDA as a > pre-condition to interviewing me to find out whether I'm good enough for > them. I have clients that asked for an NDA half a year after I already > started working with them. I have clients that never asked for an NDA at > all. As far as I'm concerned, my reputation is at stake here. NDA or > not, I have to have the trust of my clients, which means that anything > the client would really not like to be known, I keep confidential. The > only exception I can think of is life threatening neglect, and again, > then an NDA wouldn't change my actions one way or the other. >> Thanks, >> Ira. >> > Shachar > -- Meir echo "nfjsnAsjvoy/dpn" | perl -pe 's/(.)/chr(ord($1)-1)/ge' ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
