Re: [hsflinux] [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying abouttheir license

[Giuliano Colla]

Arthur Perry ha scritto:

> Hello,
>
> I have 2 parts to this IMHO exerpt.
> Top half is system level oriented in response to the hardware detection
> "issue", and the bottom half is in regard to the tainted kernel module
> load flag.
>
> Creating a hardware detection package for a distribution is not an
> incredibly difficult thing to do, since most of the tools that one needs is readily available.
>  
<snip>

I fully agree with you.

> Now about the "tainted" flag, the end user who is at the level of who
> needs this whole package is probably not going to know too much about what
> "tainted" means, or would not know that is is even there.
>  
In that case particular they may notice, because they would get too 
screenfull of errors, instead of just one!

> Professionals will be flagged, but I think they have a right to know.
>
>  
>
> I would want to know if a device driver that I have loaded is indeed a
> binary-type within a wrapper of some kind. That will give me an indication
> of what to expect. If I caught any wind of the vendor HIDING such things
> from me, because they want to make their device driver APPEAR to be just
> as native as the rest, then I would say that TAINTS the VENDOR'S
> REPUTATION in my eyes.
> You have to remember who you are trying to fool.
>
>  
You're right by the ethical point of view. But by practical point of 
view, if you're a professional you knew everything beforehand, when you 
dowloaded the piece of software, and had to accept an agreement which 
has nothing to do with GPL.

--
Ing. Giuliano Colla
Direttore Tecnico
Copeca srl
Bologna Italy 



-
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/