GPL-only symbols and ndiswrapper
Posted Oct 26, 2006 14:43 UTC (Thu) by malor
In reply to: GPL-only symbols and ndiswrapper
Parent article: GPL-only symbols and ndiswrapper
Actually, after thinking about it, I'm not sure it would be illegal to distribute that way. A Windows driver isn't a derivative work of Linux, period.
If someone could get permission to distribute the drivers, I suspect it might be perfectly legal to distribute Linux (GPL), ndiswrapper (GPL), and Windows binary drivers (non-GPL, but not a derivative work.) I don't think a Windows driver could be considered a derivative work even if distributed this way. I could be wrong. This is at least a little gray, but it's certainly much less egregious than Tivoizing the code, which the kernel devs are perfectly happy with.
I don't think there's any way AT ALL that this can be painted as a GPL issue. It's just kernel devs being assholes, and using the GPL flag to do so.
They are abusing their users, and I would encourage distros to just disable the 'taint' code in their kernels. It's being misused.
to post comments)