Re: ndiswrapper and GPL-only symbols redux

["Måns Rullgård" <mans@mansr.com>]

Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> writes:

> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Zan Lynx wrote:
>> Jon Masters wrote:
>> > 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.
>> 
>> Well, as long as *any* part of the kernel ever links to proprietary
>> code, then GPL functions link to it in exactly the same way
>> ndiswrapper enables.  It's only a matter of how many steps of
>> separation.
>> 
>> A perfectly GPL USB network driver linked to GPL-only functions
>> feeds data into the kernel where it swirls about and emerges from a
>> proprietary network filesystem driver, for example.
>
> A proprietary network filesystem driver _on a different system_, you
> mean? In this case the proprietary code has no direct access to your
> kernel data, except through the communication protocol. No tainting is
> involved, as all corruption in your kernel is caused by kernel bugs in
> visible code that can be debugged.

Untrusted code doesn't necessarily violate the GPL.  The two issues
are orthogonal.

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mans@mansr.com