[lkml]   [2004]   [Apr]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

Helge Hafting wrote:
> Timothy Miller wrote:
>> 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...
> "Unsupported" seems a good candidate to me. It describes the
> situation fairly well. Such a kernel is unsupported by the
> kernel community, and probably by the binary module vendor
> too. They tend to restrict support to their own module . . .

GOOD! And if people misunderstood "unsupported" to also mean that the
VENDOR doesn't support it either, that's fine, because it's almost
always true. :)

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:0.073 / U:0.832 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site