Re: A compromise that could have been reached. Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

[Tim Connors]

Timothy Miller <miller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said on Fri, 30 Apr 2004 17:38:25 -0400:
> 
> 
> Marc Boucher wrote:
> > 
> > Indeed. The driver in question contains 8 interdependent modules. What 
> > we were thinking of doing to settle the issue short-term in a fair way 
> > for both our users and kernel developers, is removing the \0 from the 
> > central one (hsfengine), causing the kernel to be properly tainted and 
> > one instance of the messages to be automatically printed when the driver 
> > is used.
> > 
> > Hopefully the community will view this as an acceptable compromise. Once 
> > patches have propagated onto people's computers, we will be happy to 
> > remove all \0's completely.
...
> I think what you need to do right now is do a lot of begging.  I agree 
> that in principle, it's only technically necessary to have one of the 
> modules taint the kernel.  But it's still "bad" to lie about the module 
> license and should only be done after much scrutiny and discussion.

What's wrong with the printk setting workaround? Simply write a number
to the appropriate file before you load the modules.

I just tried googling for the relevant post, but failed...

He doesn't need to wait for the patches to propogate. He can act on
his own scripts immediately in readiness for the next version.

Easy.

-- 
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
Modus Ponens in action:
- Nothing is better than world peace. 
- A turkey sandwich is better than nothing. 
  ==>  Ergo, a turkey sandwich is better than world peace. 
-
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/