Policy document sounds useful. Just as something to avoid flamewars. Probably treat it as a
sort of secondary 'soft' license that is not enforced, but is expected to be followed unless
you have a very good reason not to.
As far as the NDIS wrapper goes.. it is indeed horrific. I see people routinely recommend to
users to blacklist open source drivers so that they can get ndiswrapper working, rather then
put the effort into trying to solve the problem. Just search around Ubuntu's forums and you'll
see what I mean. It's a sort of a new rehash of a old quote.. You have a problem because the
default driver isn't working, so you try to get NDISwrapper working.. now you have two
Even here at work I had one clueless guy actually install ndiswrapper in a production machine
because he didn't bother to find the perfectly working open source driver.
But I don't see it as a license violation.. I mean as a end user I am under zero restrictions
under the GPL. If I want to funnel all the closed source binary code in the world into the
kernel nobody has any ability to tell me I can't, according to the license. It's simply
implimenting a driver-level API, which is common thing to have in other operating systems.