Re: incorrect taint of ndiswrapper

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>]

On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 03:19:00PM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
>...
> 
> This means that ndiswrapper would be considered as a derived work of
> Linux.  Since ndiswrapper is under GPL, it would suffer unfairly if the
> meaning of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is extended to restrict GPLed modules
> capable of loading proprietary code into the kernel.
>...

You could always write a tiny GPL-ed wrapper module with the sole 
purpose of offering all EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL'ed functions through 
EXPORT_SYMBOL'ed wrapper functions.

You are using a gnu.org address for publically stating that trying to 
prevent such kinds of wrapping was unfair?

It's not even clear that any modules containing non-GPL'ed code were 
legal.

EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL shows a pretty clear intention, and offering 
functionality provided throug h EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL'ed symbols to 
proprietary code sounds very fishy.

> Regards,
> Pavel Roskin

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/