[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:0.020 / U:66.200 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site