RE: Linux 2.4.9-ac6

[Justin Guyett]

On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, David Schwartz wrote:

<snip>

So basically this is all obvious.  Nobody's going to help someone with a
million-dollar GPL module if they don't provide the code.  People will
help others with non-GPL modules if they are interested in helping, can
legally get the code, and can legally distribute patches.  Nobody's going
to be an idiot and stick rigidly by a tainting scheme when someone
obviously has an open-source module that's not GPL, and needs help.
That's all I was trying to say.  I don't think everyone's going to
ignore tainted bug reports universally, and there's nothing requiring that
to happen.  It makes sense to read a bit more into a bug report anyway;
Ignoring filesystem corruption because the bug report was tainted by an
nvidia driver or a 3rd-party serial driver isn't going to help anyone.

That's all in the interpretation of the tainted report, not the fact that
it's tainted.  There's also reporter-end probably-undebuggable report
elimination.  If two people a year don't report "X Crashed ... and I use
nvdriver", that's a reason to have a taint flag, even if everyone ignored
the flag, even if it was set, in bug reports that were posted, right?

justin