RE: ndiswrapper and GPL-only symbols redux

David Schwartz
2008-01-30T20:50:22Z

> I wouldn't quite say that. I wasn't going to comment, but...personally,
> I actually disagree with the assertions that ndiswrapper isn't causing
> proprietary code to link against GPL functions in the kernel (how is
> an NDIS implementation any different than a shim layer provided to
> load a graphics driver?), but I wasn't trying to make that point.

By that logic, the kernel should always be tainted since it could
potentially always be linked to non-GPL code.

The ndiswrapper code is just like the kernel. It is GPL, but it could be
linked to non-free code. Any reason why ndiswrapper should be tainted would
equally well argue that any kernel with module-loading capability should be
tainted. Somebody might load a non-free module.

DS