Ar Llu, 2006-10-23 am 19:43 -0700, ysgrifennodd Giridhar Pemmasani:
> I was not fully aware of this issue until now (I have read posts related to
> this issue now). Does this mean that any module that loads binary code can't
> be GPL, even those that load firmware files? How is
Firmware is usually more clearly separated (the problem ultimately is
that "derived work" is a legal not a technical distinction).
> non-GPL-due-to-transitivity going to be checked? Why does module loader mark
> only couple of modules as non-GPL, when there are other drivers that load
> some sort of binary code? It is understandable to mark a module as non-GPL if
> it is lying about its license, but as far as that is concerned, ndiswrapper
> (alone) is GPL.
Yes. I don't think the current situation is neccessarily correct, but if
it uses EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL then the "now taint me" ought to fail and the
driver ought to refuse to load a non GPL windows driver.
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
