Hello,<snip>
I have 2 parts to this IMHO exerpt.
Top half is system level oriented in response to the hardware detection
"issue", and the bottom half is in regard to the tainted kernel module
load flag.
Creating a hardware detection package for a distribution is not an
incredibly difficult thing to do, since most of the tools that one needs is readily available.
Now about the "tainted" flag, the end user who is at the level of whoIn that case particular they may notice, because they would get too screenfull of errors, instead of just one!
needs this whole package is probably not going to know too much about what
"tainted" means, or would not know that is is even there.
Professionals will be flagged, but I think they have a right to know.You're right by the ethical point of view. But by practical point of view, if you're a professional you knew everything beforehand, when you dowloaded the piece of software, and had to accept an agreement which has nothing to do with GPL.
I would want to know if a device driver that I have loaded is indeed a
binary-type within a wrapper of some kind. That will give me an indication
of what to expect. If I caught any wind of the vendor HIDING such things
from me, because they want to make their device driver APPEAR to be just
as native as the rest, then I would say that TAINTS the VENDOR'S
REPUTATION in my eyes.
You have to remember who you are trying to fool.