Re: A compromise that could have been reached. Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

[Marc Boucher <marc@linuxant.com>]

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.

Marc

On Apr 30, 2004, at 4:47 PM, Timothy Miller wrote:

> Something occurred to me...
>
> It does take some time to get patches to propogate onto people's 
> computers.  Linuxant has the problem that they have to be able to work 
> in lots of different already-deployed kernels.
>
> I get the impression that Linuxant attempts to load and try a large 
> number of drivers in order to detect hardware.  While that isn't 
> necessarily the best way to probe for devices, I can see why it would 
> be unpleasant to have numerous "taint" messages print out in the 
> general case.
>
> The best solution to this would be both legal (in the sense of them 
> being licensed to do this) and solve Linuxant's problem.  How to do 
> this?
>
>
> Linuxant could have posed this problem to LKML and gotten permission 
> to do something "questionable", which is what I am going to suggest:
>
> First:   Do the "GPL\0" thing with the permission of LKML members, 
> conditioned on the next two steps.
>
> Second:  Make the Linuxant loader program print out a message that 
> explains to users that the kernel is really being tainted, even though 
> it doesn't look that way, and also that same message needs to get into 
> appropriate system logs.
>
> Third:   Find some way to force on the "tainted" flag in the kernel 
> after all the module load attempts have been finished.
>
>
> I'm not declaring this to be THE solution   It might be crap.  But the 
> Linux community does enjoy cooperating with people who are trying to 
> do good things and need help.  An argument can be made that there is 
> some benefit to what Linuxant does, and that argument is strong enough 
> that enough people would probably agree to this sort of compromize.
>
>
> In fact, in my opinion, if I were a major kernel contributor, I 
> wouldn't mind the "questionable workaround" at all if the consequences 
> of it were deal with by forcing the "tainting" flag on after the 
> tainting flag had been defeated.
>
> Make sense?
>