Linus Torvalds wrote:
quoted text
> 
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> 
>>>I'm not seeing why ndiswrapper should be treated separately.
>>
>>It is already treated separately, and has been for a long time.
> 
> 
> No, I mean "separately from the thing it loads".
> 
> It loads non-GPL code, it is non-GPL.

But the GPL only applies to derivative works.  Given that ndiswrapper 
loads binaries designed for another OS, doesn't that mean that it is 
unlikely that the binaries would be impacted by the GPL?

So the portion that is a derivative work (ndiswrapper itself) is GPL, 
and it loads something that is clearly not a derivative work.  From a 
licensing standpoint how is this different than an open-source driver 
loading a proprietary firmware?

Once ndiswrapper loads the binary blob the kernel should be considered 
tainted from a debuggability standpoint, but I have some sympathy for an 
argument suggesting that ndiswrapper should be able to use GPLONLY symbols.

Chris
--
unsubscribe notice
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/