[lkml]   [2004]   [Apr]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

Paul Wagland wrote:
> On Apr 29, 2004, at 17:14, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Timothy Miller wrote:
>>>> "Due to $MOD_FOO's license ($BLAH), the Linux kernel community
>>>> cannot resolve problems you may encounter. Please contact
>>>> $MODULE_VENDOR for support issues."
>>> Sounds very "politically correct", but certainly more descriptive and
>>> less alarming.
>> More importantly, it directs the support burden to where
>> it, IMHO, belongs.
> Just to throw in my two cents at the end of this long debate... :-)
> I heartily endorse (for what little that is worth ;-) the change in
> text. It adds clarity, it provides more information as to where to go
> for information. It is hard to misconstrue as a message of impending
> doom, consider that a good synonym for tainted is corrupted, and a
> corrupted kernel is a bad thing :-).
> Cheers,
> Paul

While we're on all of this, are we going to change "tained" to some
other less alarmist word? Say there is a /proc file or some report that
you can generate about the kernel that simply wants to indicate that the
kernel contains closed-source modules, and we want to use a short,
concise word like "tainted" for this. "An untrusted module has been
loaded into this kernel" would be just a bit too long to qualify.

Hmmm... how about "untrusted"? Not sure...

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:0.097 / U:1.304 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site