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

Timothy Miller
2004-04-30T16:17:16Z

Helge Hafting wrote:
> Timothy Miller wrote:
>
>>
>> While we're on all of this, are we going to change "tained" to some
>> other less alarmist word? Say there is a /proc file or some report
>> that you can generate about the kernel that simply wants to indicate
>> that the kernel contains closed-source modules, and we want to use a
>> short, concise word like "tainted" for this. "An untrusted module has
>> been loaded into this kernel" would be just a bit too long to qualify.
>>
>> Hmmm... how about "untrusted"? Not sure...
>
>
> "Unsupported" seems a good candidate to me. It describes the
> situation fairly well. Such a kernel is unsupported by the
> kernel community, and probably by the binary module vendor
> too. They tend to restrict support to their own module . . .
>

GOOD! And if people misunderstood "unsupported" to also mean that the
VENDOR doesn't support it either, that's fine, because it's almost
always true. :)