Re: ndiswrapper and GPL-only symbols redux

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>]

On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 12:08:30AM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 15:53 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > I don't know what the circumstances are in this case, since the
> > description quoted was quite sketchy.  I suggest that someone send a
> > clear description of the case to licensing@gnu.org to find out what
> > GPLv2 implies about it.
> 
> I don't think anyone implies that there are any real copyright issues
> with ndiswrapper, at least in the US.  With all differences in
> intonations, everybody seems to understand that.
> 
> It's understandable that kernel developers feel uncomfortable about
> ndiswrapper, which loads non-free Windows drivers into the kernel
> memory.  It's understandable that kernel developers don't want to
> support systems where such code has been running at any time.
> 
> It's understandable that ndiswrapper can be considered as an unwelcome
> alternative to free drivers, although it's actually used for reverse
> engineering and it allows to check that the unsupported hardware is
> functional without having to boot to a non-free OS.  A kernel that did
> something unsupportable becomes "tainted".
> 
> Unfortunately, the code for making ndiswrapper taint the kernel is
> similar to the code that makes non-free modules (i.e. non-free software
> specifically designed to work with Linux) taint the kernel.  That's why
> is has happened for the second time already that ndiswrapper was lumped
> together with non-free modules and disallowed to use certain kernel
> facilities that were only meant for free software.
> 
> Even though it was done by mistake both times, it looked as an
> intentional change every time.  It is an emotional issue, but it has
> little to do with copyright issues and more with understandable
> antipathy of the kernel developer towards non-free software running with
> the kernel privileges.
> 
> I think the whole idea to bring you into the discussion was based on
> misunderstanding of my use of the word "linking".  There is a difference
> between compiling and linking a non-free program from the source code
> against free headers and free libraries and loading non-free code and
> making it work by emulating non-free interfaces with free software.
> 
> I was merely saying that the later is OK.  I was not advocating the
> former.
>...

The Linux kernel is licenced under the GPLv2.

Ndiswrapper loads and executes code with not GPLv2 compatible licences 
in a way in the kernel that might be considered similar to a GPLv2'ed 
userspace program dlopen() a dynamic library file with a not GPLv2 
compatible licence.

IANAL, but I do think there might be real copyright issues with 
ndiswrapper.

> 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