On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 15:26 +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > > I would like some clarification. Is the above what the whole dispute is about? > > A warning message? > > I didn't think it was a dispute just someone sounding off. But yes all we > do to "enforce" the module licensing for general usage symbols exported > with EXPORT_SYMBOL() is provide a taint warning. For deep internal > symbols a kernel module must be GPL or GPL compatibly licensed. That sounds perfectly logical to me, as you cannot warranty nor have responsibility for something you didn't or can't code or modify. RH IS a commercial product. No doubt about it and they are completely up-front about it and always have been. It would be a disservice to their customer base to ship a pristine product with a handful of potential garbage tossed in. It would be dumber-than-hell. So, where's the beef? Just think liability. Think insurance costs. Think CFO. There isn't anything in the world that would convince a really good CFO to allow his company to ship something that might prove to be a financial liability in this sue-happy world we live in. Give it up, and get real guys. I betcha Dell has a CFO too. And, I bet they don't ship something with mp3 playback loaded and ready to use in it, as shipped. Wait and see what happens. :) Ric -- ================================================ My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say: "There are two Great Sins in the world... ..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity. Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad. Linux user# 44256 Sign up at: http://counter.li.org/ http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/oar http://www.wayward4now.net ================================================
