| |||||||||||||
GPL-only symbols and ndiswrapperGPL-only symbols and ndiswrapperPosted Oct 25, 2006 23:53 UTC (Wed) by sfeam (subscriber, #2841)In reply to: GPL-only symbols and ndiswrapper by josh_stern Parent article: GPL-only symbols and ndiswrapper
Please see above.
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.
(Log in to post comments)
GPL-only symbols and ndiswrapper Posted Oct 26, 2006 1:29 UTC (Thu) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link] It is understood that it is not technically a license violation to distribute ndiswrapper. But the discussion here is not about legal technicalities but rather about whether it was appropriate behavior for the kernel developers to redefine their policy wrt ndiswrapper and EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. From my point of view, the new policy is understandable as something designed to better support the intentions of the developers who wanted the use of their code restricted (note - it wouldn't be surprising if Linus accepted later patches introducing different implementations without those restrictions, but that's not really the point). So the discussion about appropriateness should center on whether it was a good idea to respect the intentions of those developers at the expense of user inconvenience.
GPL-only symbols and ndiswrapper Posted Oct 26, 2006 13:19 UTC (Thu) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link] Ah, in the GPLv3 it is bad that end use is restricted.
But with ndiswrapper, it's good.
This is a perfect example of hypocrisy from the kernel developers, that's all.
Joachim
GPL-only symbols and ndiswrapper Posted Oct 26, 2006 14:48 UTC (Thu) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link] > Ah, in the GPLv3 it is bad that end use is restricted.
Actually, despite what the kernel developers might tell you, GPLv3 does
Shouldn't be IMO, but I don't make these decisions for Linux.
Sadly, indeed.
GPL-only symbols and ndiswrapper Posted Nov 3, 2006 0:40 UTC (Fri) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link] For my argument, it doesn't matter if the GPLv3 restricts end use or not.
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.
GPL-only symbols and ndiswrapper Posted Nov 3, 2006 1:17 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] As reported on this very site, that was an accident. No hypocrisy here.
GPL-only symbols and ndiswrapper Posted Nov 3, 2006 1:44 UTC (Fri) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link] Please click on the link in your post, then click on "Thread", and then read the comments of Alan Cox, Adrian Bunk, and others. Also Arjan van de Ven to some extent (he wants to patch it now, but doesn't acknowledge the USB problem). Please note as well that the thread states that the kernel developers think seriously about reintroducing the problem in 6 months again, just to give ndiswrapper developers and users more time to plan some action until then. (Well, but what action? Maybe installing Windows because Linux won't support their exotic USB hardware any more? 0.5 ;-) )
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.
|
|||||||||||||