On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 18:21 -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote: > 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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
