changing upstream's MODULE_LICENSE string in module source

[Eduard Bloch <edi@gmx.de>]

#include <hallo.h>
* Kel Modderman [Sat, Feb 25 2006, 12:46:42AM]:
> Eduard Bloch wrote:

> >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).

Ehm... Sorry, would you please read the license you are talking about?
You did not even copy it to the report. 

As said in the changelog, the license is BSD license text with
/BSD/Smart Link Ltd./ substitution. Are you saying that phrases in the
BSD license have no power if used by somebody else?

All code is open source except of two object files, one that goes into
the executable program (implementing high level modem functions) and one
linked with the modem driver (implementing extra features like Fax
ability). The modem driver can be replaced with ALSA drivers if only PPP
functionality is needed.

So, your "Brief reason":
(though I think it is quite obvious and you simply force paper work to
attract attention on a non-issue)

The drivers do not load. They compile fine, but they do not load because
some kernel developers think that they must throw stones into way of
users (for whose sake?!).

I have set the MODULE_LICENSE string to "Dual BSD/GPL" because I
honestly think that this is appropriate in this case.
And after all: I did not change the license, I changed one line in the
source, so the Subject was incorrect.

However, I will follow the consens of the d-legal discussion. I would
even put an "#error Please change the MODULE_LICENSE string in this
file, otherwise it will not load with your kernel. Don't forget to send
a formal complaint to the kernel developers." into the .c file.

> >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
> >battle?
> > 
> >
> 
> 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?

Almost.

Eduard.
-- 
Kosh Naranek: A stroke of the brush does not guarantee art from the bristles.
                                                 -- Quotes from Babylon 5 --