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

[Helge Hafting]

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 . . .

Helge Hafting

-
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/