Re: A compromise that could have been reached. Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license
From: Marc Boucher
Date: Fri Apr 30 2004 - 17:07:41 EST
I had proposed this compromise in good faith to Rusty at the very
beginning of the debate but have not received an answer about it from
him yet.
Since it appears impossible to get formal "approval" from a "community"
composed of very diverse elements (for better and for worse) we will
probably implement this short-term solution to restore tainting.
Regards
Marc
On Apr 30, 2004, at 5:38 PM, Timothy Miller wrote:
Marc Boucher wrote:
Indeed. The driver in question contains 8 interdependent modules.
What we were thinking of doing to settle the issue short-term in a
fair way for both our users and kernel developers, is removing the \0
from the central one (hsfengine), causing the kernel to be properly
tainted and one instance of the messages to be automatically printed
when the driver is used.
Hopefully the community will view this as an acceptable compromise.
Once patches have propagated onto people's computers, we will be
happy to remove all \0's completely.
At this point, you're not going to get any slack. If this is what
you'd done to start with, you might have gotten away with it. As it
stands, you appear to be unwilling to comply with the rules, except as
a last resort when you've been flamed for days.
I think what you need to do right now is do a lot of begging. I agree
that in principle, it's only technically necessary to have one of the
modules taint the kernel. But it's still "bad" to lie about the
module license and should only be done after much scrutiny and
discussion.
So if everyone who has a stake in this agrees to let you do it, then
go ahead. Otherwise, sorry Charley, but you're SOL.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/