Re: The tainted message

tomas szepe
2002-04-29T19:21:41Z

> >> > > Warning: The module (%s) does not seem to have a compatible license.
> >> > > Please contact the supplier of this module regarding any
> >> > > problems, or reproduce the problem after rebooting without
> >> > > ever loading this module.
> >> > >
> >> > > shorter?
> >> >
> >> > I don't think you can strip the part about open-ness of the code --
> >> > it's an essential part of the explanation. And "any problems" might
> >> > be too broad.
> >>
> >> Moreover, I think the 'compatible license thing doesnt fly.
> >>
> >> the argument against CLOSE modules is that they make the _whole_package_
> >> undebuggable.
> >>
> >> if the source is available, no matter HOW crippling its license, the
> >> package _IS_ debuggable.
> >>
> >> thie warning should be:
> >>
> >> Warning: Module %s is not open source, and as such, loading it will make
> >> your kernel un-debuggable. Please do not submit bug reports from a kernel
> >> with this module loaded, as they will be useless, and likely ignored.
> >
> >Very good! I'd only change the tense to "The non-opensource module %s is
> >about to be loaded, which will make your kernel impossible to debug," so
> >that it's crystal clear that the message is not a failure notification.
>
> Pschologically it would be better to phrase it as a postive statement.
>
> Warning: Module %s is not open source, and as such, loading it will
> make your kernel un-debuggable. Before reporting problems to
> Linux-kernel, please replicate the problem without the module loaded.

You're right. And, hmmm, tell you what.. I also like your version because
it makes no statements whatsoever about vendor support, or support from
anyone else than the people on linux-kernel.

Now, would anyone attempt to sum up all the points made here and come up
w/ something like a "final-draft" proposal?

T.