From: Marc Boucher <marc@linuxant.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Cc: rusty@rustcorp.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
riel@redhat.com,
tconnors+linuxkernel1083378452@astro.swin.edu.au,
mbligh@aracnet.com, Sean Estabrooks <seanlkml@rogers.com>,
nico@cam.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clarify message and give support contact for non-GPL modules
Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 21:02:20 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5CDEE054-9BD4-11D8-B83D-000A95BCAC26@linuxant.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0405011713110.18014@ppc970.osdl.org>
On May 1, 2004, at 8:22 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> So I'm not claiming that _you_ don't give anything back. It's purely
> about
> the module, which is not giving anything back to developers, and as
> such
> you shouldn't expect us to respect it.
The HSF modules give back what they can right now, which is all
operating system source, in an attempt to strike a reasonable
compromise.
>
>> The modules in question are not binary-only, but mixed source/binary.
>> With the submitted patch, we are also offering to take as much support
>> burden off the community by clarifying the messages to explicitly
>> direct users to where they should go for help when using third-party
>> modules.
>
> Yes, I think that patch in general makes sense.
ok
> But I literally _do_ want
> people to be alarmed about tainting, because it's a DAMN BIG issue.
> Suddenly you go from a system that is openly supported by a lot of
> individuals and a number of companies, to one that is not. It's
> literally
> the difference between "open" and "proprietary", and that is an
> IMPORTANT
> difference.
Understood. So perhaps we should call it "open" and "proprietary" which
are clear, well known words. "tainted" is honestly confusing/hard to
understand for many ordinary users, especially international/non-native
speakers who do not encounter the word that often (thankfully ;-).
>
> So I don't see how you can really try to minimize that HUGE difference,
> without effectively saying that you don't respect the work and the
> ethics
> that have gone into Linux in the first place.
>
> See what I'm saying? A proprietary module is more a fundamental issue
> than
> you seem to give it credit for being, and users should be told in big
> blinking neon letters about it.
Yes, I see what you are saying and agree that the user should be told
*once* about the proprietary module, but I don't know how you will
manage to make it look like blinking neon from within the kernel ;-)
Marc
>
> Linus
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-05-02 1:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <009701c42edf$25e47390$ca41cb3f@amer.cisco.com>
[not found] ` <40929F5B.9090603@techsource.com>
2004-04-30 18:58 ` [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license Hua Zhong
2004-04-30 20:14 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2004-04-30 19:19 ` 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 [this message]
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
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
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=5CDEE054-9BD4-11D8-B83D-000A95BCAC26@linuxant.com \
--to=marc@linuxant.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mbligh@aracnet.com \
--cc=nico@cam.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=seanlkml@rogers.com \
--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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®