Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 30 Apr 2004 12:20:21 -0400 | From | Timothy Miller <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license |
| |
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. :)
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |