Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for December 5, 2013
Deadline scheduling: coming soon?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 27, 2013
ACPI for ARM?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 21, 2013
What about the nvidia graphics drivers?
How is this case different or the same?
GPL-only symbols and ndiswrapper
Posted Oct 25, 2006 17:12 UTC (Wed) by vondo (guest, #256)
I suspect (but have no knowledge) that the GPL licensed ndiswrapper uses the GPL symbols but does not provide access to those symbols to any driver it loads. At most, it will translate between the GPL symbols and the Windows symbols.
Come to think of it, I suppose it's technically possible that the NV driver wrapper (which is GPL) might do the same thing.
Pure speculation on my part, so if I'm wrong, please let me know.
Posted Oct 25, 2006 19:21 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
I don't think that your realy going to work around the issue.
The ndiswrapper is different as it's more of a generic loader and the windows drivers are clearly 100% not derived code. There are absolutely no restrictions on what end users can do via the GPL license. Personally I could steal W2k source code and shovel it into the kernel code and that is 100% ok as far as the GPL goes. Problems crop up however when you want to ship it to other people.
As for shipping working ndiswrapper drivers.. that's even worse then the nvidia stuff.
Not only are you violating the kernel developer's copyright license, but your also probably violating the licenses provided by the windows drivers writers who probably signed licenses with Microsoft stating that their code is only allowed to run on MS operating systems.. which seems the standard stuff for Microsoft's software licensing.
Posted Oct 26, 2006 23:43 UTC (Thu) by filipjoelsson (subscriber, #2622)
The nvidia binary module is developed for Windows. Ndiswrapper is a shim to load proprietary drivers developed for Windows, exactly the same as the nvidia shim is. The only difference is that ndiswrapper is a generalized framework whereas the nvidia shim is specialized for just one driver.
So the following question is perfectly valid: Why should ndiswrapper use GPL-symbols when the nvidia shim can't? Both are shipped as source, and ndiswrapper relies on the user providing the proprietary driver.
Posted Nov 2, 2006 18:30 UTC (Thu) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263)
The nvidia glue is not GPL at all (there is not even a MODULE_LICENSE string in there), just like the binary blob.
Posted Oct 25, 2006 17:16 UTC (Wed) by nikarul (subscriber, #4462)
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds