What does tainting actually mean?

["Nigel Cunningham" <ncunningham@linuxmail.org>]

Hi all.

I'm probably going to regret this, but seeing the current discussion on  
binary modules makes me wonder:

What does tainting actually mean?

What I mean is, how does it help to know that a kernel is tainted? When  
I'm working on Software Suspend and someone sends me an oops, I don't  
really care whether it's marked as tainted or not. For all I know, even if  
it's not tainted, they may have thrown in half a dozen different patches  
aside from Suspend, any one of which could be playing a role in the  
appearance of the oops. It doesn't help me to know that the kernel was  
tainted. It helps me to know what the non-standard additions are (and how  
the kernel was configured), regardless of whether the additions mark the  
kernel tainted or not.

Of course I realise at the same time that maybe tainting has nothing to do  
with saying 'This isn't an unmodified tree' and everything to do with  
saying 'This kernel has had non-GPL code interacting with it'. If that's  
the case, I don't see the relevance of saying (as Paul did a little while  
ago):

"You deceived maintainers who receive "untainted" bug reports."

Indeed, the surrounding lines seem to make it clear that the real issue is  
not fixing bugs but politics. Thus my question: What does tainting  
actually mean?

Regards,

Nigel
-- 
Nigel Cunningham
C/- Westminster Presbyterian Church Belconnen
61 Templeton Street, Cook, ACT 2614, Australia.
+61 (2) 6251 7727 (wk)