Being honest with MODULE_LICENSE
Posted Apr 28, 2004 20:20 UTC (Wed) by rjamestaylor
Parent article: Being honest with MODULE_LICENSE
Well, dammit. I previously noted in this domain that I am using Linuxant's Windows binary driver wrapper to utilize my WiFi hardware I purchased from Dell, which they purchased from Broadcom, which they acquired from whoever they acquired... I knew the driver was a binary, obviously, but didn't think that license deception was being committed. While my Dell is off being repaired (again) for a bad motherboard (again) I can't do anything about this, but I will definitely request a refund from Linuxant and remove the driver loader from my system. Then I'll head over to SourceForge and check out the Open Source project trying to accomplish the same thing. If I can't make it work, I'll stick a PCMCIA 802.11b card in the PCMCIA slot -- and avoid that gnawing feeling in my gut.
They say "it's for the customer" but what they mean is "if we played by the rules the customer would be annoyed and we'd lose money." The "rules" are simple to follow: tell the truth. If the tainted alerts are too annoying to bear, then release your damn product GPL or withhold it and let humanity suffer. Whatever.
Look it -- how would Linuxant feel if I made a quick hack to get around their MAC address/license registration scheme so my friends and family could pay me $5 each to use my binary-wrapper-wrapper on their computers without annoying "registration" alerts and disablment? I bet Linuxant would be pretty indignant -- "How dare you take money from me? You must pay the license fee for using this software solution!" Oh yeah? Well, to benefit from the work of the Linux kernel developers you need to honor their license, too.
Creepy. Hypocritical. Wrong.
to post comments)