#include <hallo.h> * 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. > > > > > > slmodem-2.9.9e-pre1a/COPYING > > > /* > * > * 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 memory): <=2.7.x: the package is distributed via SmartLink's software pool without restrictions. Mirrored by Linmodems people. Pure kernelspace implementation. 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 daemon 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 hot. > 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 people. Eduard. -- Captain John Sheridan: Bester. PsiCop Alfred Bester: Captain Sheridan. Captain John Sheridan: Get the hell out of my chair. -- Quotes from Babylon 5 -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]