[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:0.019 / U:1.040 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site