Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:36:59 -0400 | From | Timothy Miller <> | Subject | Re: [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 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/
| |