From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
To: "Pavel Roskin" <proski@gnu.org>
Cc: <rms@gnu.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <jonathan@jonmasters.org>,
       <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>, <pgiri@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: ndiswrapper and GPL-only symbols redux
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 03:38:52 -0800
Message-ID: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKGEAHKCAC.davids@webmaster.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
In-Reply-To: <20080206105051.GA13874@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi>
Importance: Normal
Reply-To: davids@webmaster.com
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1381
Lines: 27


Adrian Bunk wrote:

> The Linux kernel is licenced under the GPLv2.
> 
> Ndiswrapper loads and executes code with not GPLv2 compatible licences 
> in a way in the kernel that might be considered similar to a GPLv2'ed 
> userspace program dlopen() a dynamic library file with a not GPLv2 
> compatible licence.
> 
> IANAL, but I do think there might be real copyright issues with 
> ndiswrapper.

Neither the kernel+ndiswrapper nor the non-free driver were developed with knowledge of the other, so there is simply no way one could be a derivative work of the other. Since no creative effort is required to link them together, and the linked result is not fixed in a permanent medium, a derivative work cannot be created by the linking process itself.

In any event, even if it was, this is the normal use of ndiswrapper, and normal use cannot be encumbered by copyright. Otherwise, it would be unwise to color in a coloring book.

So if there is a possible copyright issue, I for one can't imagine what it could be. There simply *cannot* be a copyright issue when one merely uses a work in the normal, intended and expected way.

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/