[lkml]   [2006]   [Oct]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: incorrect taint of ndiswrapper
Ar Llu, 2006-10-23 am 19:43 -0700, ysgrifennodd Giridhar Pemmasani:
> I was not fully aware of this issue until now (I have read posts related to
> this issue now). Does this mean that any module that loads binary code can't
> be GPL, even those that load firmware files? How is

Firmware is usually more clearly separated (the problem ultimately is
that "derived work" is a legal not a technical distinction).

> non-GPL-due-to-transitivity going to be checked? Why does module loader mark
> only couple of modules as non-GPL, when there are other drivers that load
> some sort of binary code? It is understandable to mark a module as non-GPL if
> it is lying about its license, but as far as that is concerned, ndiswrapper
> (alone) is GPL.

Yes. I don't think the current situation is neccessarily correct, but if
it uses EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL then the "now taint me" ought to fail and the
driver ought to refuse to load a non GPL windows driver.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-10-24 16:07    [W:0.044 / U:0.196 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site