[lkml]   [2004]   [May]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

    On May 1, 2004, at 4:47 PM, Martin J. Bligh wrote:

    >>>> All bugs can be debugged or fixed, it's a matter of how hard it is
    >>>> to do (generally easier with open-source) and *who* is responsible
    >>>> for doing it (i.e. supporting the modules).
    >>> Yes, exactly. The tainted mechanism is there to tell us that it's not
    >>> *our* problem to support it. And you deliberately screwed that up,
    >>> which is why everybody is pissed at you.
    >> It was already screwed up, and causing unnecessary support burdens
    >> both on the community ("help! what does tainted mean") and vendors.
    >> This thread and previous ones have shown ample evidence of that.
    >> Let's deal with the root problem and fix the messages, as Rik van Riel
    >> has suggested.
    >> Most third-party module suppliers have been confronted with the same
    >> issue
    >> and forced to work around it (in other imperfect and sometimes clumsy
    >> ways).
    > Odd that none of them just submitted a patch to fix the "real problem"
    > then.
    > Sorry, I don't believe that was your only intent.

    So what do you think it was? I swear to god, there was no other intent
    nor purpose.

    We have just submitted a patch to address the issue. Hopefully it (or
    similar) will make it in and the matter will become history.


    Marc Boucher
    Linuxant inc.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:02    [W:0.020 / U:5.768 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site