Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license (-> possible GPL violation :)

[Jan-Benedict Glaw]

On Tue, 2004-04-27 13:59:48 +0100, Paulo Marques <pmarques@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote in message <408E5944.8090807@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> >This way, the module format doesn't change, but we can do additional
> >verification in the loader.
> 
> The way I see it, they know a C string ends with a '\0'. This is like 
> saying that a English sentence ends with a dot. If they wrote "GPL\0" they 
> are effectively saying that the license *is* GPL period.
> 
> So, where the source code? :)

That's another (quite amusing:) point of view. Anybody willing to ask a
lawyer?

MfG, JBG

-- 
   Jan-Benedict Glaw       jbglaw@xxxxxxxxxx    . +49-172-7608481
   "Eine Freie Meinung in  einem Freien Kopf    | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg
    fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! |   im Irak!
   ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA));

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature