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

Nick Warne
2004-04-27T22:17:27Z

Sad state of affairs.

I don't know anything on the guru's side of coding and stuff in the
kernel, but I do know enough to say the module in question WAS coded
to give a false impression (or true, if you like) to the kernel so
that it supressed the 'tainted' kernel warnings.

But surely in an open source project [any project], tainted code
needs to be highlighted? What else is in there, or not? A GNU/Linux
platform needs to be told when a unknown and unvetted binary loads -
who can prove what it does otherwise, and therefore the onus is on
the user?

Maybe binary suppliers need to speak to kernel crew first on what
they need to do to get around these issues legally before it is
'discovered' and appears to be an attempt get around safeguards in
place.

Nick

--
"When you're chewing on life's gristle,
Don't grumble, Give a whistle..."