Re: incorrect taint of ndiswrapper

Alan Cox
2006-10-26T14:52:30Z

Ar Iau, 2006-10-26 am 15:41 +0100, ysgrifennodd Al Viro:
> Could we please decide WTF _GPLONLY *is* and at least remain consistent?
> Aside of "method of fighting binary-only modules", that is - this part
> is obvious.

It was originally added to mark symbols that are clearly internal only
and make a work derivative. It's somewhere expanded to include symbols
whose code authors think that a cease and desist is the correct answer
to non GPL use.

I can't really help personally on the details there since I'm of the
opinion that _GPLONLY while useful doesn't generally make a blind bit of
difference as most if not all binary modules are violating the license.
(And I'm sure Nvidia's legal counsel disagrees with me at least in
public)

Alan