From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
To: "Pavel Roskin" <proski@gnu.org>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "Rusty Russell" <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
       "Giridhar Pemmasani" <pgiri@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: ndiswrapper and GPL-only symbols redux
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:50:02 -0800
Message-ID: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKAEDNJPAC.davids@webmaster.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <20080130050424.GA22444@dallas.jonmasters.org>
Importance: Normal
Reply-To: davids@webmaster.com
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 994
Lines: 23


> I wouldn't quite say that. I wasn't going to comment, but...personally,
> I actually disagree with the assertions that ndiswrapper isn't causing
> proprietary code to link against GPL functions in the kernel (how is
> an NDIS implementation any different than a shim layer provided to
> load a graphics driver?), but I wasn't trying to make that point.

By that logic, the kernel should always be tainted since it could
potentially always be linked to non-GPL code.

The ndiswrapper code is just like the kernel. It is GPL, but it could be
linked to non-free code. Any reason why ndiswrapper should be tainted would
equally well argue that any kernel with module-loading capability should be
tainted. Somebody might load a non-free module.

DS


--
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/