Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 30 Apr 2004 20:14:29 +0200 | From | Giuliano Colla <> | Subject | Re: [hsflinux] [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license |
| |
Arthur Perry ha scritto:
>Hello, > >I have 2 parts to this IMHO exerpt. >Top half is system level oriented in response to the hardware detection >"issue", and the bottom half is in regard to the tainted kernel module >load flag. > >Creating a hardware detection package for a distribution is not an >incredibly difficult thing to do, since most of the tools that one needs is readily available. > > <snip>
I fully agree with you.
>Now about the "tainted" flag, the end user who is at the level of who >needs this whole package is probably not going to know too much about what >"tainted" means, or would not know that is is even there. > > In that case particular they may notice, because they would get too screenfull of errors, instead of just one!
>Professionals will be flagged, but I think they have a right to know. > > > >I would want to know if a device driver that I have loaded is indeed a >binary-type within a wrapper of some kind. That will give me an indication >of what to expect. If I caught any wind of the vendor HIDING such things >from me, because they want to make their device driver APPEAR to be just >as native as the rest, then I would say that TAINTS the VENDOR'S >REPUTATION in my eyes. >You have to remember who you are trying to fool. > > > You're right by the ethical point of view. But by practical point of view, if you're a professional you knew everything beforehand, when you dowloaded the piece of software, and had to accept an agreement which has nothing to do with GPL.
-- Ing. Giuliano Colla Direttore Tecnico Copeca srl Bologna Italy
- 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/
| |