On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 12:34:53AM -0400, Chaskiel Grundman wrote: > On Fri, 6 May 2005, Matthew Miller wrote: > > > however, I think it'd be *beter* if the > >message weren't "libafs: module license 'unspecified' taints kernel", which > >can look kind of scary. So, this makes it be "libafs: module license 'IBM > >Public License Version 1.0' taints kernel" instead, which is at least more > [...] > My objection to doing this is that while it will help some users, it also > in sense legitimizes the whole license checking scheme, and I'd rather we > didn't help do that. > > If we had a non-flamey FAQ describing the issue, then putting a URL to it > in the license field instead would make me happier. I'm not volunteering to > provide such a thing, however.
What is the real (or perceived) conflict with the IBM public license and the GPL? I don't really see what is not legitimate about the license checking scheme though. I'm tempted to submit a patch to the kernel that adds a 'TAINT_OSS_MODULE' flag to indicate that an OSI approved, but not necessarily GPL compatible module was loaded. _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
