Alan Cox wrote:
That's not what is happening, it's exactly the opposite. I've listed
the kernel message several times so maybe you can figure it out for
yourself.
The taint message is there so the kernel developers know which bug
reports they can ignore because only the binary module vendor has all the
source code needed to fix them. It also taints in different ways if you
force various things, if a memory error is detected and the like to help
classify bugs.
Still, it is not clearly legal to distribute a complete system with
parts that aren't GPL'd - which continues to make more money for
Microsoft than any of their own anticompetitive ploys. Plus, the
refusal to freeze a driver interface for any length of time makes it
very impractical for vendors to support their hardware - and more than a
decade of waiting for GPL'd versions hasn't worked out and there is no
reason to think it ever can. Personally I think the only solution is
for a vendors like Dell/IBM/HP, etc. to supply a system with everything
_except_ the GPL'd parts since it is easier for the end user to obtain
the GPL'd components on their own than properly licensed versions of the
other things necessary to make their system functional.
If we wanted to enforce arbitary control over what you stick in the kernel
we'd have implemented digitally signed modules and code that keeps going
back over the kernel making sure it hasn't been adjusted and each block
still checksums the same - like say Vista does.
That's a great idea as long as it just ties a signature to an
author/owner and leaves the choice of who to trust up to the end user.
It is bad enough that GPL licensing takes away everyone's choices about
what can be distributed together. When it starts dictating what can run
together it will no longer be very useful.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
