Re: changing upstream's MODULE_LICENSE string in module source
* Kel Modderman [Sat, Feb 25 2006, 10:15:11AM]:
> >Ehm... Sorry, would you please read the license you are talking about?
> >You did not even copy it to the report.
> * Copyright (c) 2001, Smart Link Ltd.
> * All rights reserved.
> * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
> * are met:
> http://www.smlink.com/content.aspx?id=142 (LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR END USERS)
> *Linux end useres*
Like previously you qoute stuff without checking the context. Here you
forget the fourth dimension (time). So, a short summary for those who
care about history (maybe imperfect, too much time passed and too weak
<=2.7.x: the package is distributed via SmartLink's software pool
without restrictions. Mirrored by Linmodems people. Pure kernelspace
2.8.x: support for OEM models becomes limited. People are forced to
agree with some disclaimer on the website. Package is still available in
their software pool and is mirrored by the Linmodems people.
2.9.1..2.9.5: package is split into a kernel module and a software
2.9.6..2.9.9 (08/2004): support for ALSA instead of the kernel module, sufficient for
doing PPP. Mirrored by Linmodems people.
Now the "fun" begins. Apparently SmartLink begins to terminate their
modem business. Version 2.9.10 (with few changes) appears on their
website with the new crappy license you mentioned.
For some months Linmodems distribute 2.9.9x versions, based on original
2.9.9 plus modifications. In 2005's fall, slmodemd-2.9.11_20051009
appears on Linmodems' site, and it was unclear to me where exactly it
comes from. So Debian package still is at 2.9.9 plus minor fixes from
the mentioned 2.9.9x series. In the meantime, I got the information that
this 2.9.11-<date> versions have been derived from an internal work
snapshot, created directly before the 2.9.10 release.
I know that Kannotix guys took one of that 2.9.11 tarballs to
create their version of sl-modem packages. Fine. I am not ready to do
that in Debian without having real evidence that the export of that
source happened with permission of SmartLink Ltd., the stuff is just too
> This part in particular:-
> Intellectual Property Notices: Buyer agrees that all copyright and other
Hehe. I have already used that license for NM checks once ;-)
> >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?!).
> Your opinion of what the kernel's code means to end users of modules
> with non-gpl compat. licenses has no relevance in this matter, and does
> not justify the change to MODULE_LICENSE.
As said, I will undo that change as soon as enough unbiased opinions
exist. Md raised his voice and he has a point, though a DMCA-threat in
GPL context looks slightly absurd.
> >I have set the MODULE_LICENSE string to "Dual BSD/GPL" because I
> >honestly think that this is appropriate in this case.
> But do Smart Link Ltd. agree with your changes? That is the question . . .
Remember the old license, covering _this_ version?
Anyway, for now I will take amrmo_init.c from that 2.9.11 tarball. It
is basically the one from 2.9.9 but instead of fixing the sysfs-class
functionality (what our patch did) it just disables it completely (and
has some new modem ids). Not the finest solution but should appease most
Captain John Sheridan: Bester.
PsiCop Alfred Bester: Captain Sheridan.
Captain John Sheridan: Get the hell out of my chair.
-- Quotes from Babylon 5 --