On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 09:03:29PM -0700, Zan Lynx wrote: > On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 19:33 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > Also, the code has undergone a rewrite, fixing many issues, and changing > > the way things work to tie more closely into the main driver core code. > > As such, the class_simple code is now just gone, there is no such need > > for it. And as such, the new code contains the _GPL markings, as I do > > not think that _anyone_ can try to claim that their code would not be a > > derived work of Linux who wants to use it (as no other OS has such a > > driver model interface.) > > That does not really make sense, as the driver model code could be used > for ndiswrapper, for example. That would not make the Windows net > drivers derived code of the Linux kernel. ndiswrapper, yes it would be. > Binary driver blobs, no. > > ndiswrapper is a perfect example, in fact. It is GPL, and implements an > _interface_ to binary code that is not GPL.
And do your lawyers deem ndiswrapper as something that is legal under the GPL? The ones I have talked to definitely do not feel that way. Again, why are we, non-lawyers arguing about this. If you work for a company that deals with Linux kernel issues, and you have any questions about the legality of _anything_, get a legal opinion. Don't rely on lkml for this. greg k-h - 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/