Fedora - DELL ?

[Les Mikesell]

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 at gmail.com