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

Marc Boucher
2004-05-01T20:58:13Z

On May 1, 2004, at 4:47 PM, Martin J. Bligh wrote:

>>>> All bugs can be debugged or fixed, it's a matter of how hard it is
>>>> to do (generally easier with open-source) and *who* is responsible
>>>> for doing it (i.e. supporting the modules).
>>>
>>> Yes, exactly. The tainted mechanism is there to tell us that it's not
>>> *our* problem to support it. And you deliberately screwed that up,
>>> which is why everybody is pissed at you.
>>
>> 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.
>> Let's deal with the root problem and fix the messages, as Rik van Riel
>> has suggested.
>>
>> Most third-party module suppliers have been confronted with the same
>> issue
>> and forced to work around it (in other imperfect and sometimes clumsy
>> ways).
>
> Odd that none of them just submitted a patch to fix the "real problem"
> then.
> Sorry, I don't believe that was your only intent.

So what do you think it was? I swear to god, there was no other intent
nor purpose.

We have just submitted a patch to address the issue. Hopefully it (or
something
similar) will make it in and the matter will become history.

Marc

--
Marc Boucher
Linuxant inc.