Messages in this thread | | | From | "Nick Warne" <> | Date | Tue, 27 Apr 2004 23:17:16 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license |
| |
Sad state of affairs.
I don't know anything on the guru's side of coding and stuff in the kernel, but I do know enough to say the module in question WAS coded to give a false impression (or true, if you like) to the kernel so that it supressed the 'tainted' kernel warnings.
But surely in an open source project [any project], tainted code needs to be highlighted? What else is in there, or not? A GNU/Linux platform needs to be told when a unknown and unvetted binary loads - who can prove what it does otherwise, and therefore the onus is on the user?
Maybe binary suppliers need to speak to kernel crew first on what they need to do to get around these issues legally before it is 'discovered' and appears to be an attempt get around safeguards in place.
Nick
-- "When you're chewing on life's gristle, Don't grumble, Give a whistle..."
- 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/
| |