On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 18:21 -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:

quoted text
> Of course, ndiswrapper could taint itself as a module, but it would be a
> purely symbolic act, since the module would be loaded already, and the
> GPL-only symbols resolved.

I think that might be an acceptable alternative to the current explicit
matching on "ndiswrapper" in the kernel. Something should say "hey, the
kernel is tainted, and I'm the reason why", not just set a global taint.

Note: personal opinion aside, I actually wasn't trying to start a huge
copyright debate here. I just thought the taint flag logic was wrong (if
we're going to match on specific modules, we should mark them) - an
alternative would be a new type of taint flag?

Jon.


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