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
I don't see any references to LGPL in ndiswrapper code.
GPL-only symbols and ndiswrapper
Posted Oct 25, 2006 22:39 UTC (Wed) by josh_stern (guest, #4868)
I'm saying that ndiswrapper is really an LGPL concept covertly hiding in GPL clothing. It depends on the ability to link with proprietary stuff in order to do what it is intended to do.
Posted Oct 25, 2006 23:53 UTC (Wed) by sfeam (subscriber, #2841)
The GPL/LGPL does not prohibit linking to non-GPL code. It only restricts, potentially, the distribution of such a combination. That is not the issue here. Rather we are concerned about end use, which is outside the purview of the GPL. Some people may also be opposed to the end use, but they must find some mechanism other than a claim of GPL infrigement to exercise that opposition.
Posted Oct 26, 2006 1:29 UTC (Thu) by josh_stern (guest, #4868)
Posted Oct 26, 2006 13:19 UTC (Thu) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646)
But with ndiswrapper, it's good.
This is a perfect example of hypocrisy from the kernel developers, that's all.
Posted Oct 26, 2006 14:48 UTC (Thu) by cventers (subscriber, #31465)
Actually, despite what the kernel developers might tell you, GPLv3 does
no such thing. It's still just a copyright license. You don't even have
to accept it to use the covered work!
> But with ndiswrapper, it's good.
Shouldn't be IMO, but I don't make these decisions for Linux.
> This is a perfect example of hypocrisy from the kernel developers,
> that's all.
Posted Nov 3, 2006 0:40 UTC (Fri) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646)
It matters that that the kernel developers argue against GPLv3 because they think it restricts end use and they cannot tolerate such restrictions. But then they restrict end use themselves in the case of ndiswrapper. This inconsistent behavior is hypocrisy, independent of the legal facts.
Posted Nov 3, 2006 1:17 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
Posted Nov 3, 2006 1:44 UTC (Fri) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646)
I didn't want to imply that all kernel developers have the opinion that ndiswrapper is illegal, but important and well known people have, as shown in the thread from your link.
Btw, I don't even use ndiswrapper myself. So my opinion is not connected to any influence on my own usage of Linux. It is a general observation about a behavior of kernel developers that I don't understand.
Posted Oct 26, 2006 3:18 UTC (Thu) by interalia (subscriber, #26615)
It depends on the ability to link with proprietary stuff in order to do what it is intended to do.
This same assertion about ndiswrapper happened on the Debian mailing lists, regarding whether it was non-free. Some people argued that nothing prevented you using ndiswrapper to load a GPL-licensed Windows driver, were such a beast to exist. Since ndiswrapper's own license doesn't preclude the loading of a GPL (or otherwise DFSG-free) driver, it didn't therefore deserve to be in non-free. Or, indeed, you might be writing Windows drivers and want to try loading them in ndiswrapper.
This was a contentious point, and although I personally feel the logic makes sense, others felt the practical reality that there is currently no free driver overruled this and consigned ndiswrapper to non-free. I seem to recall a slim majority holding to that latter viewpoint, though the maintainer himself felt it was suitable for main and no-one requested Debian's Technical Committee override his decision.
Posted Oct 26, 2006 3:44 UTC (Thu) by josh_stern (guest, #4868)
Personally, I would have supported the decision that Debian made and I would also support people who wanted to remove GPL-only symbols from the kernel. Here I'm just saying that I also support the decision of other kernel developers not to allow unintended workarounds for using GPL-only symbol code once they've already accepted that way of doing things.
Posted Oct 26, 2006 10:47 UTC (Thu) by syntaxis (subscriber, #18897)
Posted Oct 27, 2006 2:12 UTC (Fri) by interalia (subscriber, #26615)
Yes, that's what I said :) I probably wasn't very clear, but I said the maintainer felt it was OK for main and no-one tried to override his decision, implying that the maintainer's decision held.
Posted Oct 31, 2006 4:45 UTC (Tue) by proski (subscriber, #104)
All "linking" is happening in the kernel memory on the end user system. There is no such thing as ndiswrapper "linked" to a non-free driver for the purpose of distribution.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds