Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

[Timothy Miller]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/