So I'm not claiming that _you_ don't give anything back. It's purely about
the module, which is not giving anything back to developers, and as such
you shouldn't expect us to respect it.
The modules in question are not binary-only, but mixed source/binary.
With the submitted patch, we are also offering to take as much support
burden off the community by clarifying the messages to explicitly
direct users to where they should go for help when using third-party
modules.
Yes, I think that patch in general makes sense.
But I literally _do_ want
people to be alarmed about tainting, because it's a DAMN BIG issue.
Suddenly you go from a system that is openly supported by a lot of
individuals and a number of companies, to one that is not. It's literally
the difference between "open" and "proprietary", and that is an IMPORTANT
difference.
So I don't see how you can really try to minimize that HUGE difference,
without effectively saying that you don't respect the work and the ethics
that have gone into Linux in the first place.
See what I'm saying? A proprietary module is more a fundamental issue than
you seem to give it credit for being, and users should be told in big
blinking neon letters about it.
Linus