Linus Torvalds wrote:
quoted text
> 
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Chris Friesen wrote:
> 
>>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?
> 
> 
> But that's what GPLONLY means.
> 
> What's so hard to understand? The driver may not be a derivative work, but 
> it sure as hell isn't GPL'd. 

I hope this won't dump me into the flamers filter....but here goes:

If the intent of the GPLONLY export is really to keep the symbol from 
being used by non-GPL code then I agree that ndiswrapper shouldn't be 
able to use them.

However, you yourself wrote something stating otherwise: 
(http://groups.google.ca/group/linux.kernel/msg/0066655bb1be1e4c):

'I think we _can_ do things where we give clear hints to people that "we
think this is such an internal Linux thing that you simply cannot use 
this without being considered a derived work".....So I personally don't 
see EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() to be a "technical measure", I see it as being 
"documentation".'

Under that interpretation, ndiswrapper should be able to make use of 
GPLONLY symbols because the binary blobs are clearly not derivative works.

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/