Anthony Towns writes: > But even if that weren't the case, nasm is an assembler -- it doesn't > rely on assembler code to do anything useful, its purpose is to translate > assembler code. ndiswrapper isn't a driver compiler, it's a wrapper to > allow existing drivers to run on Linux.
This apparently means that you object to translation at the binary level but not translation at the source level. I guess that's reasonable in a general sense, it's just not a distinction that policy or the DFSG makes. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
