Re: The tainted message

Richard Thrapp
2002-04-27T16:03:13Z

On Sat, 2002-04-27 at 10:20, Alan Cox wrote:
> More informative but I think too soft. It still implies we might want to
> hear about it but not reply. That isnt the case.
>
> How about
>
> Warning: The module you have loaded (%s) does not seem to have an open
> source license. Please send any kernel problem reports to the
> author of this module, or duplicate them from a boot without
> ever loading this module before reporting them to the community
> or your Linux vendor
>
> ??

I like the wording of that. I suggest that we change the words "an open
source license" to "a GPL-compatible license" since that's what we're
checking for (if I remember incorrectly, please correct me). It might
also be important to put the license string in there somewhere.

-- Richard Thrapp