mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sean Estabrooks <seanlkml@rogers.com>
To: Marc Boucher <marc@linuxant.com>
Cc: rol@as2917.net, mbligh@aracnet.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au,
	riel@redhat.com, nico@cam.org,
	tconnors+linuxkernel1083378452@astro.swin.edu.au,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@osdl.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clarify message and give support contact for non-GPL modules
Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 11:45:29 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040502114529.2dc7940a.seanlkml@rogers.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5C616C5C-9C4E-11D8-B83D-000A95BCAC26@linuxant.com>

On Sun, 2 May 2004 11:35:37 -0400
Marc Boucher <marc@linuxant.com> wrote:

> There will always be things in life that cannot be controlled. The 
> kernel already depends on (by being called by, or itself calling) 
> uncontrolled proprietary code in many environments without telling 
> users about it. Informing people about this is perfectly ok,  
> unnecessarily scaring or confusing them is not.

Agreed.

> Very good point. You can make things as negative-sounding, politically 
> hostile as you want, but Linux distribution vendors would be perfectly 
> free under the GPL to modify the kernel to remove or attenuate 
> exaggerated messages and any other hostile measures if necessary.

Yes.  You're right.

> If the messages are reasonable and clear, no-one will want/try to 
> remove or avoid them, and people will be properly informed.

That is what the latest patch attempts to do while still making sure 
that users are not fooled into thinking they're running an open 
source operating system.

Cheers,
Sean

  reply	other threads:[~2004-05-02 15:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <009701c42edf$25e47390$ca41cb3f@amer.cisco.com>
2004-04-30 19:19 ` [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license Linus Torvalds
2004-04-30 19:37   ` Hua Zhong
2004-04-30 22:47     ` Allowing only "-g" compiled modules! (was: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license) Jan-Benedict Glaw
2004-04-30 20:11   ` [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license Marc Boucher
2004-04-30 20:26     ` Linus Torvalds
2004-04-30 20:39       ` Marc Boucher
2004-04-30 20:44         ` Linus Torvalds
2004-04-30 20:53           ` Marc Boucher
2004-04-30 21:05             ` Linus Torvalds
2004-04-30 21:10             ` Timothy Miller
2004-04-30 20:46         ` Sean Estabrooks
2004-04-30 20:34     ` Stefan Smietanowski
2004-04-30 20:47     ` A compromise that could have been reached. " Timothy Miller
2004-04-30 21:07       ` Marc Boucher
2004-04-30 21:16         ` Rik van Riel
2004-04-30 21:38         ` Timothy Miller
2004-04-30 22:05           ` Marc Boucher
2004-05-01  2:36           ` Tim Connors
2004-05-01  0:40     ` Jorge Bernal
2004-05-01  5:07     ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-05-01 19:12       ` Marc Boucher
2004-05-01 19:27         ` Davide Libenzi
2004-05-01 19:32         ` Zwane Mwaikambo
2004-05-01 19:33         ` Sean Estabrooks
2004-05-01 22:14           ` Randy.Dunlap
2004-05-01 19:47         ` Nicolas Pitre
2004-05-01 20:53           ` [PATCH] clarify message and give support contact for non-GPL modules Marc Boucher
2004-05-01 21:34             ` Sean Estabrooks
2004-05-01 21:48               ` Marc Boucher
2004-05-01 21:53                 ` Sean Estabrooks
2004-05-01 22:22                 ` Sean Estabrooks
2004-05-01 22:53                   ` Marc Boucher
2004-05-01 23:10                     ` viro
2004-05-02  7:04                       ` Xavier Bestel
2004-05-04 17:06                       ` Timothy Miller
2004-05-01 22:48                 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-05-01 23:28                   ` Marc Boucher
2004-05-02  0:22                     ` Linus Torvalds
2004-05-02  1:02                       ` Marc Boucher
2004-05-02 12:43                         ` Sean Estabrooks
2004-05-02 13:05                           ` Paul Rolland
2004-05-02 15:35                             ` Marc Boucher
2004-05-02 15:45                               ` Sean Estabrooks [this message]
2004-05-04 17:09                     ` Timothy Miller
2004-05-01 20:47         ` [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license Martin J. Bligh
2004-05-01 20:58           ` Marc Boucher
2004-05-03  0:04         ` Horst von Brand
     [not found] ` <40929F5B.9090603@techsource.com>
2004-04-30 18:58   ` Hua Zhong
2004-04-30 20:14   ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20040502114529.2dc7940a.seanlkml@rogers.com \
    --to=seanlkml@rogers.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=marc@linuxant.com \
    --cc=mbligh@aracnet.com \
    --cc=nico@cam.org \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=rol@as2917.net \
    --cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
    --cc=tconnors+linuxkernel1083378452@astro.swin.edu.au \
    --cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome