[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:0.019 / U:26.444 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site