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

[Marc Boucher]

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.

-
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/