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

[Giuliano Colla <copeca@copeca.dsnet.it>]

Arthur Perry ha scritto:

>Hello,
>
>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.
>  
>
<snip>

I fully agree with you.

>Now about the "tainted" flag, the end user who is at the level of who
>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.
>  
>
In that case particular they may notice, because they would get too 
screenfull of errors, instead of just one!

>Professionals will be flagged, but I think they have a right to know.
>
>  
>
>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.
>
>  
>
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.

-- 
Ing. Giuliano Colla
Direttore Tecnico
Copeca srl
Bologna Italy