Re: Bug#354216: upstream license patched in debian package
Eduard Bloch wrote:
* Kel Modderman [Fri, Feb 24 2006, 11:05:37PM]:
+sl-modem (2.9.9d+e-pre2-1) unstable; urgency=low
+ * New upstream pre-release (closes: #327588)
+ * added sv.po from Daniel Nylander (closes: #330436)
+ * slmodemd.1 manpage from Erik Schanze (closes: #335369)
+ * defining URB_ASYNC_UNLINK if not set, needed by recent kernels
+ * applied patch for class/simple_class transition from Gentoo lists with
+ some fixes (closes: #325799)
+ * changed the MODULE_LICENSE string to "Dual BSD/GPL" since the license
+ is actually a BSD license clone (closes: #327545)
How can you justify this change?
I though I have written that above.
Can you please clarify at all? What makes a license "clone" an
interchangeable license, especially since you are the one responsible
for the actual license change, and not "Smart Link Ltd."? What do they
think about it? Is it your lawful right to change it? Please write a
brief reason for the change, but a bit more informative than the reason
stated in debian/changelog (#327545 revealed nothing).
I believe it is offensive to the linux kernel developers to circumvent
the license exportation of the smartlink module in this manner.
I believe something different. I believe it is quite offensive to the
Linux users when some kernel developers deliberately replace interfaces
with incompatible ones with strace access limitation. Looks similar to
tactics known from patenting interfaces and file formats.
Well, this will not be discussed further here, its been well thrashed by
drivers/amrlibs.o and modem/dsplibs.o are binary blobs. drivers/st7554.c
(ST7554 USB Smart Link Soft Modem driver) depends on these binary blobs.
First: only on one of them, amrlibs.o. The other file just have been
forgoten in the driver source and will be removed, thanks for noticing.
Second: Yes, this is a non-GPLed driver which is to be loaded with the
Linux kernel. And?
In recent linux kernel code, some advanced functions require a GPL
compatible license, drivers/base/class.c:-
The above mentioned modification of the Smartlink license circumvents
I know, no need to teach me. But what are you trying to say? Or are you
just one of the anti-NON-GPL-drivers crusaders, trying to begin a new
Absolutely not. I am sorry you think I am taking the time to report what
I honestly think to be a grave flaw because I want to bignote myself or
prove a point. My primary and only concern is the integrity of the
software debian users are provided. Is that o.k?