From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262380AbUEAU6N (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 May 2004 16:58:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262389AbUEAU6N (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 May 2004 16:58:13 -0400 Received: from wirefire.bureaudepost.com ([66.38.187.209]:32957 "EHLO oasis.linuxant.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262380AbUEAU6L (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 May 2004 16:58:11 -0400 In-Reply-To: <17110000.1083444468@[10.10.2.4]> References: <009701c42edf$25e47390$ca41cb3f@amer.cisco.com> <90DD8A88-9AE2-11D8-B83D-000A95BCAC26@linuxant.com> <6900000.1083388078@[10.10.2.4]> <772768DC-9BA3-11D8-B83D-000A95BCAC26@linuxant.com> <17110000.1083444468@[10.10.2.4]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <40B152E3-9BB2-11D8-B83D-000A95BCAC26@linuxant.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "'lkml - Kernel Mailing List'" , Tim Connors From: Marc Boucher Subject: Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 16:58:09 -0400 To: "Martin J. Bligh" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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.