Subject: Re: ndiswrapper and GPL-only symbols redux
From: Jon Masters <jonathan@jonmasters.org>
To: Pavel Roskin <proski@gnu.org>
Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
       Giridhar Pemmasani <pgiri@yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <1201648883.18773.95.camel@dv>
References: <1201641765.18773.35.camel@dv>
	 <24944.1201645637@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>  <1201648883.18773.95.camel@dv>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: World Organi[sz]ation Of Broken Dreams
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:25:29 -0500
Message-Id: <1201652729.2271.95.camel@perihelion>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 965
Lines: 24


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 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/