Re: Non-GPL modules

[Martin Dalecki <dalecki@evision-ventures.com>]

Ben Collins wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 07:02:08PM +0200, Martin Dalecki wrote:
> > >
> > > Review of the driver source-code by a competent hardware designer,
> > > who knows how to read code, will give away the trade secret. Then
> > > anybody, who hasn't bothered to invest the millions of dollars of
> > > Engineering development cost, can make one of these cheaper and
> > > put us out of business.
> >
> > And what about the simple fact that the tainted flag will become
> > entierly useless when in fact most of us will be using tainted
> > kernel? Hey anyway most of us are now deploying "tainted" linux
> > distributions anyway and NOT GNU/Linux Debian. Most of use use
> > distros and kernels far away from the official Linus kernel too, so
> > this flagging doesn't help anybody it's just BLOAT.
> 
> So you think it is the responsibility of the l-k hackers to field bugs
> against highly hacked and forked versions of the kernel from a distro
> that you use?


Of course not, I never said that. But introducting this
stiupid tagging wan't help them anyway... so why do they introduce it?
The same solution applys as ever - just say: "We don't care about
kernels different from anything on ftp.kernel.org." and let it be...
I really see no advantage in this tagging. It's a common trap
in the western world to beleve that the introduction of some
"anti law" is actually preventing "voilence" from happenning.