lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Apr]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateTue, 27 Apr 2004 19:53:39 +0200 (CEST)
FromGrzegorz Kulewski <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Chris Friesen wrote:

> Marc Boucher wrote:
>
> > On Apr 27, 2004, at 1:25 PM, Adam Jaskiewicz wrote:
>
> >> Would it not be better to simply place a notice in the readme
> >> explaining what
> >> the error messages mean, rather than working around the liscense checking
> >> code? Educate the users, rather than fibbing.
> >
> >
> > Good idea. We will try to clarify the matter in the docs for the next
> > release.
> > A lot of users don't read them though, so a proper fix remains necessary..
>
> Does your company honestly feel that misleading the module loading tools is actually the proper way
> to work around the issue of repetitive warning messages? This is blatently misleading and does not
> reflect well, especially when the "GPL" directory mentioned in the source string is actually empty.
>
> A "proper fix" begins with not attempting to mislead the kernel/tools about the license...

Maybe kernel should display warning only once per given licence or even
once per boot (who needs warning about tainting tainted kernel?)


Grzegorz Kulewski

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:02    [from the cache]
©2003-2010