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

Randy.Dunlap
2004-05-01T22:16:52Z

On Sat, 1 May 2004 15:33:19 -0400 Sean Estabrooks <seanlkml@rogers.com> wrote:

| On Sat, 1 May 2004 15:12:18 -0400
| Marc Boucher <marc@linuxant.com> wrote:
|
| > It was already screwed up, and causing unnecessary support burdens
| > both on the community ("help! what does tainted mean") and vendors.
| > This thread and previous ones have shown ample evidence of that.
|
| Tainting is working just like it is supposed to work. The reduced
| support burden for senior Linux maintainers has been a benefit.
|
| > Let's deal with the root problem and fix the messages, as Rik van Riel
| > has suggested.
|
| The kernel maintainers will decide what's best for Linux. They're the
| ones responsible for overseeing Linux. But if we're going to change
| the message i'd prefer something along the lines of:
|
| "Now loading a non GPL driver. Please consider supporting vendors that
| provide open source drivers for their hardware. Your kernel will now be
| marked as tainted, all this means is that you should send any support
| requests to the author of this driver."

I agree, this is better than the Aunt Tillie message.
(Second sentence could be omitted. I agree with it,
but it's not in the right setting IMO.)

[snip]

| > > What's wrong with the printk setting workaround? Simply write a number
| > > to the appropriate file before you load the modules.
| > >
| > > I just tried googling for the relevant post, but failed...
| > >
| > > He doesn't need to wait for the patches to propogate. He can act on
| > > his own scripts immediately in readiness for the next version.
| > >
| > > Easy.
| >
| > Not. We don't use a script to systematically load the modules,
| > because they are large and not always required, nor want to
| > interfere with the system's normal logging.
| >
| > Manipulating printk settings or redirecting the superfluous
| > messages elsewhere are also ugly hacks, which can
| > potentially also divert/hide important messages.

So why is the tainted message to be different?

--
~Randy