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

Giuliano Colla copeca at copeca.dsnet.it
Fri Apr 30 21:14:29 EDT 2004

Arthur Perry ha scritto:

>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.

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 

More information about the hsflinux mailing list