> On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 15:53 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > I don't know what the circumstances are in this case, since the
> > description quoted was quite sketchy. I suggest that someone send a
> > clear description of the case to
licensing@gnu.org to find out what
> > GPLv2 implies about it.
>
> I don't think anyone implies that there are any real copyright issues
> with ndiswrapper, at least in the US. With all differences in
> intonations, everybody seems to understand that.
>
> It's understandable that kernel developers feel uncomfortable about
> ndiswrapper, which loads non-free Windows drivers into the kernel
> memory. It's understandable that kernel developers don't want to
> support systems where such code has been running at any time.
>
> It's understandable that ndiswrapper can be considered as an unwelcome
> alternative to free drivers, although it's actually used for reverse
> engineering and it allows to check that the unsupported hardware is
> functional without having to boot to a non-free OS. A kernel that did
> something unsupportable becomes "tainted".
>
> Unfortunately, the code for making ndiswrapper taint the kernel is
> similar to the code that makes non-free modules (i.e. non-free software
> specifically designed to work with Linux) taint the kernel. That's why
> is has happened for the second time already that ndiswrapper was lumped
> together with non-free modules and disallowed to use certain kernel
> facilities that were only meant for free software.
>
> Even though it was done by mistake both times, it looked as an
> intentional change every time. It is an emotional issue, but it has
> little to do with copyright issues and more with understandable
> antipathy of the kernel developer towards non-free software running with
> the kernel privileges.
>
> I think the whole idea to bring you into the discussion was based on
> misunderstanding of my use of the word "linking". There is a difference
> between compiling and linking a non-free program from the source code
> against free headers and free libraries and loading non-free code and
> making it work by emulating non-free interfaces with free software.
>
> I was merely saying that the later is OK. I was not advocating the
> former.
>...
