From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262873AbUEBBC0 (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 May 2004 21:02:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262874AbUEBBCZ (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 May 2004 21:02:25 -0400 Received: from wirefire.bureaudepost.com ([66.38.187.209]:44992 "EHLO oasis.linuxant.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262873AbUEBBCX (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 May 2004 21:02:23 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <772768DC-9BA3-11D8-B83D-000A95BCAC26@linuxant.com> <20040501205336.GA27607@valve.mbsi.ca> <20040501173450.006bae55.seanlkml@rogers.com> <3F6634E3-9BB9-11D8-B83D-000A95BCAC26@linuxant.com> <3114F1F7-9BC7-11D8-B83D-000A95BCAC26@linuxant.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <5CDEE054-9BD4-11D8-B83D-000A95BCAC26@linuxant.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: rusty@rustcorp.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, riel@redhat.com, tconnors+linuxkernel1083378452@astro.swin.edu.au, mbligh@aracnet.com, Sean Estabrooks , nico@cam.org From: Marc Boucher Subject: Re: [PATCH] clarify message and give support contact for non-GPL modules Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 21:02:20 -0400 To: Linus Torvalds 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 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 >