Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: incorrect taint of ndiswrapper | From | Alan Cox <> | Date | Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:07:10 +0100 |
| |
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.
Alan
- 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/
| |