Re: incorrect taint of ndiswrapper

[Gianluca Alberici <gianluca@abinetworks.biz>]

Thierry Vignaud wrote:

>David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> writes:
>
>  
>
>>>>Personally I feel that no matter if they are legal or not, we
>>>>should not cater to such drivers in the first place.  If it's
>>>>trickier to use Windows API-drivers under Linux than to write a
>>>>native Linux driver, big deal...  We don't want Windows-drivers.
>>>>We want native drivers.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Neither taint nor _GPL are intended to stop people doing things
>>>that, in the eyes of the masses, are stupid. The taint mark is
>>>there to ensure that they don't harm the rest of us. The FSF view
>>>of freedom is freedom to modify not freedom to modify in a manner
>>>approved by some defining body.
>>>      
>>>
>>Hence my use of the world "Personally".  It's my own opinion that we
>>shouldn't support Windows API-drivers.  I don't think this has
>>anything to do with the FSF view on freedom.  This has to do with
>>the freedom to make a sound technical decision.
>>    
>>
>
>and your freedom to do whatever you want at home isn't restricted by
>the tainting.
>  
>
In fact it is now, because ndiswrapper doesnt load on 2.6.19.
The fact: there's a lot of people who are not gonna be using his wlan
unless they are able to modify the sources.
I wouldnt forget that ndiswrapper is a tool which solves problems. Linux
diffusion is affected by compatibility issues.
I really cant see the benefit for Linux in stop supporting windows NDIS
drivers...there's a lot of hardware which works only by that.

>-
>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/
>  
>