Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

[Timothy Miller]

Helge Hafting wrote:
> Timothy Miller wrote:
>
> > While we're on all of this, are we going to change "tained" to some 
> > other less alarmist word?  Say there is a /proc file or some report 
> > that you can generate about the kernel that simply wants to indicate 
> > that the kernel contains closed-source modules, and we want to use a 
> > short, concise word like "tainted" for this.  "An untrusted module has 
> > been loaded into this kernel" would be just a bit too long to qualify.
> >
> > Hmmm... how about "untrusted"?  Not sure...
>
>
> "Unsupported" seems a good candidate to me.  It describes the
> situation fairly well.  Such a kernel is unsupported by the
> kernel community, and probably by the binary module vendor
> too. They tend to restrict support to their own module . . .


GOOD!  And if people misunderstood "unsupported" to also mean that the 
VENDOR doesn't support it either, that's fine, because it's almost 
always true.  :)

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/