Slashdot Mirror
Linus Denounces NDISWrapper, Denies It GPL Status
eldavojohn writes "On message boards, Linus Torvalds was explaining why NDISWrapper is not eligible to be released under the GPL even though the project claims to be. Linus remarked, "Ndiswrapper itself is *not* compatible with the GPL. Trying to claim that ndiswrapper somehow itself is GPL'd even though it then loads modules that aren't is stupid and pointless. Clearly it just re-exports those GPLONLY functions to code that is *not* GPL'd." This all sprung up with someone restricted NDISWrapper's access to GPL-only symbols thereby breaking the utility. Linus merely replied that "If it loads non-GPL modules, it shouldn't be able to use GPLONLY symbols." As you may know, NDISWrapper implements Windows kernel API and then loads Windows binaries for a number of devices and runs them natively to avoid the cost and complication of emulation."
This is all very interesting, but who or what is "GPL"???
today is spelling optional day.
As long as there are no usable alternatives for many common chipsets, you won't win this one, Linus. People are then going to mod the kernel source so ndiswrapper appears kosher, and all you'll get is a +nd version for all major distributions, and fewer people using relatively clean source.
-- Linus, in this post
And as you may know, Linux loads NDISWrapper.
"Trying to claim that ndiswrapper somehow itself is GPL'd even though it then loads modules that aren't is stupid and pointless. If it loads non-GPL modules, it shouldn't be able to use GPLONLY symbols."
Someone explain how that is a different claim than the following:
Trying to claim that Linux somehow itself is GPL'd even though it then loads programs that aren't is stupid and pointless. If it loads non-GPL programs, it shouldn't be able to use GPLONLY symbols."
Before people flame Linus for whining, or trying to sabotage Linux users' ability to run drivers that they need, look at how OpenBSD handled this matter. They too rejected ndiswrapper, and ended up putting their energy towards reverse engineering wireless drivers instead. The results were positive, and in some cases the Linux folks ended up picking up their code too.
And, when you write an open driver, you can maintain it more effectively. You can check it for security problems. You can fix its bugs. With ndiswrapper, you are putting a completely unknown blob of code inside your kernel and trusting it. This is never a good idea when other alternatives exist!
So, use ndiswrapper if you feel that you absolutely must... But it shouldn't receive any official endorsement that would cause most users to be dependent on it. Kernel developers shouldn't think of the wireless driver issue as a "resolved" one. The ideal situation is to reverse engineer a free driver.
Isn't ndiswrapper just a shim, even if it's does very little translation? Businesses have been making proprietary to GPL shim's for ages, you know like Nvidia's driver. Why wouldn't the converse acceptable, or at least worthy of discussion?
-b
As ridiculous as it may sound, it's theoretically possible for a Windows driver to be licensed under the GPL. Thus, no legal troubles when loaded by ndiswrapper :)
And this is the year of the Linux desktop, right?
... and that's why they have a Mac. Seriously - nice concept, the whole Linux thing, but it just isn't going to be for the masses. Sorry to tell you that.
I've been hearing that for 10+ years now, and this is a prime example of where the Linux folks miss the boat.
Do you really think my parents give a rolling fig about GPL vs. non-GPL code, who's exporting who's symbols or any of that? They just want their damned wireless Internet to work...
Time to re-arm and focus on the enterprise - you stand a shot there. But even there - it needs work. Stability, for one. A Red Hat box that is out of date the day we deploy it does nobody any good. A real patch management strategy would be nice.
Binary compatibility for another. I can pick up an HP-UX PA-RISC 9 binary, drop it on an HP-UX 11.31 Itanium system and it _just runs_. Same holds true for Sun -- drop a SunOS 4 binary on a SunOS 5.10 (yes, that's Solaris 10) system, and it _just runs_.
Once Linux can do that - without recompiling, without having to resolve mutually exclusive dependencies - you just might give enterprise Unix a run for the money. Oh, and you'll have to scale up to 128+ processors too. Again - HPUX and Solaris both do that fine.
There may be a valid argument for saying that ndiswrapper can't be GPL'd, but this isn't it. In what context would this sort of reasoning be considered sound?
...and so on. The claim may be valid but this argument certainly can't be used to establish it.
--MarkusQ
I'm sorry, Linus. But that argument makes no sense.
The GPL is a distribution license. NdisWrappers doesn't distribute any binary code that isn't licensed under the GPL, and the code is available. It's up to the end user to use their own binary drivers, and such use isn't covered under the GPLv2.
I see nothing that prohibits the distribution of NdisWrappers based on the GPLv2, regardless of what that code does when it executes on the users machine.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Totally OT but I've had to rebuild a few kernels to get the ACX-100 (texas instruments) wireless going.
C|N>K
Not to start a holy war here, but this is just arrogance. Things like this make me not want to have anything to do with GPL software.
I understand that it's not a good thing to have mysterious binary glomps everywhere and that it would be better to have proper drivers and such than to have to use these sorts of wrappers. But realistically the only way that most manufacturers and software outfits are going to take users of OSI sanctioned environments seriously is if we can show them the cash flow. Which is significantly easier if you can point to a contingent of their own customers that are already using their software or hardware.
Is it really a ZOMG Linux users might be able to use a Windows driver situation? Or can people just set aside their own personal pettiness and realize that open source OSes typically have had to spend a lot of time and energy writing and maintaining drivers. Some companies aren't going to come around no matter how many installations there are. But it's rather hard to proselytize when an important bit of hardware doesn't have an appropriate driver. If most Windows drivers of a type can be made to work with an appropriate wrapper, that means that developers can focus on only rewriting the drivers which have bugs or aren't performing well. I'm sure the performance wouldn't be as good as it would've been with native drivers, but having the hardware available at all is better than none.
Ultimately it does just come down to money, if your distro/OS of choice can show the manufacturer a meaningful amount of business at some point there's enough profit there that they're going to want to tap into it. At the end of the day you've got to choose, no cost or access to quality commercial software. Even if they don't do so actively, they're more likely to be mindful about not doing things that unnecessarily break wine compatibility similar problems.
I may have missed the memo, but FreeBSD has had project evil for quite a while now, and I don't recall having seen any evidence that the OS is worse for having that option.
So will GPL'd virtualization projects be similarly excluded? It seems to me they are the functional equivalent of NDISWrapper.
Regardless of my opinion of ndiswrapper (we would be better off without it), Linus certainly seems to have a really, um...unique view of how copyright law works. First with GPLv3 and now this. Shall we start a fund to hire a lawyer to keep Linus educated about the law?
http://outcampaign.org/
Summary is missing a HUGE portion of what actually happened. The discussion continued. After the discussion, Linus applied a patch to ALLOW access to GPL_ONLY symbols (for those who care, it's git commit 9b37ccfc637be27d9a652fcedc35e6e782c3aa78).
Look at the second entry from the top in the changelog:
http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/testing/ChangeLog-2.6.25-rc4
The battle is over, the discussion is at end and Linus has already signed off a change to restore Ndiswrapper functionality.
Linux has never struck me as practical, from a user point of view and even less as a business model. Yet I cannot help but notice that every year adoption continues to grow and every year more Linux based software is produced. Obviously I am missing something. Also, I can't see announcing software is compliant with GPL, or any other standard, if the governing body has not certified it so, so once again I am missing something. But that is just me.
Linux kernel is denied GPL status because it just re-exports GPLONLY symbols to thousands of non-GPL applications such as Steam games, VMware, Opera, Apache*, Perl...
* Open Source != GPL
Yeah, this sort of thing really makes Linux look like a true contender.
I have got to say that with this type of thing going on inside the open source crowd, the closed source people have absolutely nothing to fear. Because nobody wants to deal with a crazy zealot. They want a "sure thing, we can fix that" attitude, and if they can't have that then at least not a lecture.
I've had a wonderful time, but this wasn't it -- Groucho Marx
If ndiswrapper loads proprietary binary-only drivers and provides an API translation between Windows & Linux, then when ndiswrapper itself gets loaded as a kernel module, the kernel's "taint" flag should be set. The purpose of the taint flag is clear and it is quite applicable in this case. I don't think that Linus is saying the ndiswrapper authors cannot release their code under the GPL, what he's saying is that the run-time environment is not "pure GPL".
Well, yeah basically. It's been that way for years, mainly for legal reasons.
C|N>K
The stance isn't as crazy as the context-free summary makes it out to be. Linus isn't talking about the license for the ndiswrapper code. He's talking about access to kernel functions which have been marked as "GPLONLY". These are functions which are intentionally not exported to non-GPL code. Linus is saying that allowing ndiswrapper to use them is equivalent to allowing calls from non-GPL windows binary drivers. Which is true.
The debate then is whether or not this should be considered a problem. The contributors who added many of the GPLONLY functions may have different opinions on the topic. Linus hints that the contributors for the USB functions would prefer a strict interpretation and deny ndiswrapper access to the GPLONLY kernel-level functions, because there is a perfectly good user-space API. But everyone involved agrees that ndiswrapper is will never live in user-space, because there's no programmer who would do it and it's a crazy idea anyway. Anyway you slice it, it's clear that ndiswrapper will get fixed one way or another, and nobody is accusing the ndiswrapper project of misusing the GPL.
In summmary, it's a tempest in a teapot: someone accidentally broke ndiswrapper, kernel API discussion ensues, Slashdot posts inflammatory summary, life goes on.
NDIS wrapper might itself be GPL but a kernel that uses it is not because the kernel is monolithic. Linus is actually giving everyone what they want.
What is this about GPLONLY symbols?.
Loading a non GPL kernel module makes the whole kernel non GPL and hard to debug because it's a monolithic program. Check out the Linuxant controversy of 2001.
Linus won't keep you from making and loading non free modules but he's not going to be responsible when changes break your module. If others would cooperate, this would not be an issue. The NDIS wrapper people will have to reimplement functions written by GPL strict coders. That kind of sucks for them but they can do it. If Linus were to piss off the GPL strict coders, NDIS wrapper still would not work because those coders would quit contributing. A project as large as the kernel demands give and take. GPLONLY was a nice compromise.
NDIS wrapper has never been a great idea. It puts you at the mercy of Microsoft bugs and malice all for the benefit of a $30 network card. The kind of card that needs NDIS wrapper is usually worst of class and should be shunned. It's brain dead much like a winmodem and the "firmware" game is intentional. The card maker wants to be Windows only so don't buy it. Sooner or later hardware vendors will have to come around.
I'm not even sure that linking statically creates a derivative work, as much as it creates a compilation. It's more similar to including a poem in a book of poems than it is to changing the poem itself. A derivative work involves changing or recasting the original -- static linking doesn't do this. The reason that you can't (w/o permission) distribute a program with an embedded library is more basic -- you're violating the distribution right of the library (and, presumably, the duplication right also.)
It's not a completely clear area of law. But, it seems wrong that using an interface exported by another piece of code (whether via a procedure call, a remote object invocation or just sending an appropriately formatted text message to a socket) creates a derivative work.
OpenBSD rejected NDISWrapper first, due to their "anti-binary blob" policy.
That and Linus changed his mind shortly after this was posted to Kernel Trap. Read a few comments up.
The ndiswrapper developers can release their code under any license they like, including the GPL; Linus has nothing to say about that. Furthermore, as long as Linux is under the GPL, Linus has no say over what I link into my kernel. If I want to link code under non-GPL compatible licenses into my kernel, that's my good right, under the GPL.
Linus possibly has a say over whether distributors can simultaneously distribute the Linux kernel and ndiswrapper as pre-packaged binaries. But even there, I don't see a problem: ndiswrapper itself is under the GPL and complies with the GPL. The fact that it allows end users to link code under non-GPL compliant licenses into the kernel doesn't change that.
While I think it would be nice if we didn't have to use ndiswrapper, and while one can argue either way about the desirability of its existence, now that it exists, Linus needs to honor the letter of the GPL and not try to redefine the terms after the fact. If he wants to, he can always relicense his code under different licenses in the future.
The only time GPLONLY is used is when submitting kernel crashes. Linus (and other developers) doesn't want to get backtraces for code that cannot be debugged, because it's in a Windows-only blob. You can still use ndiswrapper, just like you can use the Nvidia drivers -- the only caveat being that you cannot send a kernel hacker a dump.
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
we learn that in spite of his contributions to the open source community, Linus does not have the right to deny GPL status to anything. (yeah yeah, I know, it's a misleading headine... this *is* Slashdot after all) It's a software license. If the software developpers decide to release under the GPL or LGPL, then it's GPL software. Period. Whether or not the software is a shim for a binary blob that itself may or may not be proprietary, like NDISWrapper, is irrelevant. NDISWrapper, itself, is *not* closed source.
It's kinda like the Quake III engine. That's been released as open source, and there's an awful lot of games out there that make use of it. But it still relies on a binary blob that is itself rarely released as free. That doesn't make the engine itself any less free/open.
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
The rest of your post may have some validity but this part is just FUD. Unless you've made a distro then licensing doesn't even come into play. On the contrary if your business built a system based around Microsoft java virtual machine, when Microsoft got caught stealing code then your employees would be unable to use it.
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/3/4/300 and http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/3/4/310 do clarify the position of both Linus (right or wrong) and the maintainer of the symbols in question. *shrug*
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized I was talking to myself." ~ Jack Gurney
"Because nobody wants to deal with a crazy zealot."
Right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMU0tzLwhbE
Somehow I don't see any businesses caring one bit. Businesses don't care if Linus is a loon. They care that Red Hat, Novell, or whomever their reseller is supports the product they bought. End of story.
Btw Linux hasn't had to try and look like "a true contender" for a decade. Where have you been?
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
I don't get it. So if the Linux kernel allows non-GPL modules to be loaded, then the Linux kernel cannot be released under GPL? Do I need to remove my NVIDIA drivers now?
that causes unnecessary hysteria. This isn't exactly encouragement to purchase a subscription to Slashdot.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
For many -- perhaps for millions of users -- wireless networking was *THE* development that made personal computers interesting to them.
The fact of the matter is that with vanishingly rare exceptions, you cannot make a specification-based order for either desktop or laptop devices and have a reasonable apprehension of acquiring a working system. if the operating system happens to be Linux.
This may be the fault of the manufacturers of the Broadcom or Atheros chips, it may be the fault of the OEM's who are known to change chipsets without even changing the product codes on the packaging, and it may be the fault of the NDISWrapper folks who took the half-a-loaf opportunity and provided something that relieved some of the pressure of this, in my opinion, the most serious compatibility problem in the history of Linux.
It amazes me that, even to this day, I cannot reference a compatibility list for wireless devices in such a way that allows me to actually acquire a working device!
I think this was a huge enough problem that somebody like IBM and/or RedHat should have bought out the wi-fi chipset manufacturers for no other purpose than to force disclosure of their specs.
This wireless driver problem is the whip that has driven me to choose Macs for my last 3 portable computers. I wonder if we can even measure the impact of the lack of wireless support?
As an experiment try this: You are tasked with obtaining 255 Linux desktop computers. They must all have the same 802.11/g PCI card. It need not be "officially" supported by any company, but you do need to personally assure that it works after testing one unit. The remaining units will be deployed around the world based on your spec. Pre-assembled or in-house assembly is acceptable. What PCI card do you choose?
Try the same experiment with laptops. What wireless laptop do you order for Linux compatibility?
You can probably do both of these simply buy buying one of the few really expensive cards and/or laptops. Scale the experiment back down to the individual though, and the cost of special hardware combined with the difficulty of tracking down a compatible piece of hardware combined with the frustration that comes from buying a piece of hardware that was ON THE LIST, only to find it DOES NOT work... (Does anybody want a drawer full of Linksys USB radios that are supposed to be Prism2/Intersil according to the part number???)
This problem goes much further than any argument of whether the authors of NDISWrapper should be allowed to paste the GPL header at the top of their code. On that subject: Anybody who holds a legitimate copyright may use the GPL, or NO ONE may use it. It's copyright that allows the use of the license, and nothing else. You want your "tested in court" failure of the GPL? Assert that Linus or anyone else has some authority over your right to use the license for your work. Unfortunately, prevailing in this assertion will tend to weaken the license, since you've just made it revocable by some third party without consideration.
This theory that a piece of software cannot be released under GPL if the software loads non-GPL objects, falls flat on its face. There's simply no mechanism for a third party to constrain distribution based on that argument.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
It's a stupid irregular verb but in this case "This all sprung up" should be "This all sprang up".
"NDIS wrapper has never been a great idea. It puts you at the mercy of Microsoft bugs and malice all for the benefit of a $30 network card. The kind of card that needs NDIS wrapper is usually worst of class and should be shunned."
On the other hand, for someone like me who bought a used PIII laptop in order to have a cheap linux laptop, it made using a WIFI card incredibly easy. Not something I'm interested in learning how to hack.
I also think I understand that NDIS wrappers are used to make 32bit flash work on my 64 bit system without any input on my part (not sure I understood the article, though). Me likes NDIS wrapper. See, once more, wrappers mean more bling.
Would the above command make the GNU cat(1) command, or the GNU coreutils package non-GPL compliant? I'm not trolling, just saying that it seems up to the end-user how NDISwrapper is used, although in this case the end user seems to be the kernel.
I confess I'm very likely not comprehending the issue correctly since it doesn't seem possible that it's that simple.
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
Linux is more difficult to install and get started (I'm a Mac user, can you tell :)) So for most users I do not think Linux is practical. But every year the user interface improves and more software gets produced, so who is to say that it could not grow to dominate the market? I have seen the OLPC computer, it is good, but still not a Mac. So I just don't think Linux is practical yet, but plenty of Linux desktop users disagree.
At the core of this issue is the GPL definition of a derivative work.
Do not flame me for what I am about to write as it is my understanding of RMS' guidelines, if you have a problem with it, take it up with him.
To clarify what is and what is not a derivative work, the GPL and its supporting documents claim that a GPL work is not how self contained as it may seem i.e. shared libraries or loadable modules, but whether or not it inhabits the "process space" of the GPL work.
When a non-GPL module is loaded into the process space of a GPL application, it violates the GPL license of the application. This is why NDIS wrapper violates the GPL because its job is to load non-GPL code into the process space of the kernel, thus tainting it.
Do I agree? I'm not sure as I can see both sides of the argument. One side is that the module is self contained and isolated. The other side is that one of the purposes of the GPL is to protect the work of the people who contribute frm being unfairly used. It can be argued that the NIC card vendors who's drivers are enabled by NDISWrapper are unfairly enriched by the work of GPL developers in that their proprietary hardware is supported on a free platform without themselves being free.
This would be different if it were purely their code, but it isn't. This isn't stand-alone code. What they created is a derivative work of the Linux kernel. They used code which they didn't write and they don't own. Your argument is that the people who actually wrote the original kernel code have no right to say how it and its derivative works are used. Legally, you are completely and totally wrong. Essentially, you are advocating an end to copyrights on computer code. That's fine, but it has nothing to do with the GPL.
And this is a big deal because ... why? Because Linus' name is on it? Slashdot reminds me of the idiots who used to follow Tolstoy around and write down every word he said, "to save for posterity".
-- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
A piece of software may not be GPL if it -relies- on non-GPL code. Not if it -optionally uses- it.
Say, I release a game which requires DirectX, links against the proprietary library, depends on it. It can't be GPL. But if I make the game run on both DirectX and SDL, it's enough to make it GPL. It's not crippled by lack of DirectX, it's just a user's choice, a preference to use it.
This way NDISWrapper just -could- be GPL if only someone writes GPL counterparts of the modules it uses. It would mean then, that it's a generic module wrapper which can load a variety of modules, GPL or not, and it's up to the user to feed it the restricted ones in place of the free ones. It may load any -generic- modules, but it should have no provisions towards any specific restricted modules without having an equivalent free part.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Why should this be important? GPL is less enforceable than cops catching speeders. Linus is tilting at windmills a bit too much.
I've said it before and I'll keep on saying it: ndiswrapper is evil. The biggest obstacle right now to greater Linux usage, IMO, is the lack of wireless chipset drivers. ndiswrapper is a crutch, not a solution. Intel may have provided enough datasheets to enable writing wireless drivers for their chipsets, but Broadcomm is the 800 lb. gorilla in the room.
"Dude, just like load it with ndiswrapper and move on with working wifi!"
That attitude, I maintin, is actually harmful in the long run.
Linus says, "Trying to claim that ndiswrapper somehow itself is GPL'd even though it then loads modules that aren't is stupid and pointless."
I wrote a program and made it entirely proprietary. I compiled it and ran it on my Linux system. The kernel loaded it right up. What's the difference? The way pointers to entry points are managed? Irrelevant. The state of a "privileged" bit on the processor? A mere conceit with no legal significance. Whether it's a "kernel module" or "user code", it's all a blob of x86 instructions that the kernel loads and hands execution over to from time to time. Quod erat demonstrandum.
Ok, I do indeed agree with you that it is not feasible (for most) to spend the initial energy getting it up and running. It definitely has improved within the last couple of years! I was just afraid that you were thinking (a) since it's not practical to me (b) then it's not practical at all. I'll stop there and refrain from getting too nerdy by discussing how (a) doesn't imply (b) ;)
I do have say that Mac does interest me because I do prefer the UNIX(y) base. I'm currently a poor college student so the price is a little steep for me, however I'd still like to give the Mac a try at some point...
Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.
Try a distro from this century. Installation is far easier than Windows, unless you are using something like Gentoo (in that case, it shouldn't be a surprise). Many distros offer live CDs for install, even allowing you to use the computer while it installs.
I have not used an OLPC first hand, but someone I know did. From what I heard it has irritations not directly related to Linux, but rather design decisions. If you're going by it, it's not modern Linux. Nor is it the Linux attempt to simulate a Mac.
Quite a few non-technical people I know have switched to Linux, some with assistance some without. I think you are putting Mac users in the place of PC users.
Great Intellect...
My guess is that it is Darth Vader's operating system of FORCE. (Now there is a real BOF. None of this what's-your-user-name-clickety-clickety BS - he can read your mind and crush your throat before you even have a chance to complain about that missed email from an important colleague on Alderaan.)
I'm proud of my Northern Tibetian Heritage
If a VM loads *gasp* Windows code *gasp* then is it ineligible to be GPL? Oh noes!
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
With out it, many of us would be screwed for drivers.
Who really cares if its bla bla bla compliant?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Somewhat a flawed argument, since now that ndiswrapper exists there is no incentive to write a linux driver. I would have preferred ndiswrapper didn't exist, allowing linux developers to push for open drivers and specificiations.
So is the point of open source software to be free to do what you want or are we no better than Microsoft in insisting that everything has to be done 'our way'. I would hope that we could win arguments on merit without having to use legal means to force behaviour.
First there is a lot of hardware that don't have Linux native drivers, mostly wireless network cards and Winmodems. NDISWrapper allows people to use Windows drivers under Linux for when there isn't a native Linux driver available for Linux.
That is the Achilles heel of Linux, lack of third party driver support. Heck that's the Achilles Heel of any Non-Windows operating system be it OS/2, BeOS, AmigaOS, even Mac OSX. One OS, ReactOS, is trying to implement Windows' WDM driver model in GPLed software so that ReactOS can use Windows drivers. I would like to see Linux have the ability to use Windows drivers via some GPLed software, so Linus can borrow that from ReactOS, or write it from scratch, or maybe the WINE team can make a Linux module that loads Windows drivers for Linux that uses the WINE libraries.
I have myself gone through several different wireless cards to get a Linux desktop working and eventually I gave up because I couldn't find a Linux native driver that wasn't flaky or lost the connection, and the only success I had was with NDISWrapper, but as soon as the Linux kernel is updated it breaks NDISWrapper forcing me to recompile the code and reinstall the Windows drivers.
In fact, I have a Linux desktop near my wireless router that uses a CAT5 cable to hook into it and then use VNC from a Windows desktop in another part of the house to log into the Linux system that way. It would be nice if I was able to get good wireless networking support from a Linux native driver without losing the connection or going flaky on me. But I suppose I'll always have a VMWare Virtual Machine to use as well if I wanted to run Linux from any part of my house and not just where the router is located.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Excerpted from Linus mail of 29 Feb:
What's confusing to slashdotters about this whole shebang is that there are two separate issues going on.
First, there is a technical/legal issue relating ndiswrapper's access to the Linux kernel (specifically, access to symbols marked GPLONLY). On this matter Linus is doing his job, which is to enforce existing policy for GPLONLY stuff. Workarounds had been discussed, including the possibility that the people who actually wrote the code (USB stuff mostly) agree to remove the GPLONLY restriction that *they* imposed. Linus is not opposed to the workarounds, but he won't brook discussion about bending enforcement of GPLONLY.
Secondly, Linus' expressed personal opinion about ndiswrapper (whose only purpose is to load Windows code) is complete indifference. He simply doesn't agree that because users depend heavily on ndiswrapper, he should go out of his way to bend the GPLONLY policy or make other special efforts. And he's not alone in the kernel community. Which freaks out the users who are afraid they won't be able to keep using their wireless cards and whatnot.
So people see these two issues fused together and think that Linus is killing off ndiswrapper by personal fiat.
No there isn't. And "derived work" is a legal definition, not something defined in the GPL. Look it up.
Wireless cards have to be closed source to use US radio frequency spectrum. In many cases, merely the ability to change frequency or power via software will render these cards unuseable in a legal context.
Hello, that is some interesting information, would you care to elaborate (some links or other citations would be nice). I am authentically interested in your claim as I have never heard about such thing.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Linus has a point here, and I think we should discourage the use of Ndiswrapper in general. Personally I have a USB wireless stick (Linksys WUSB54GC) with the rt73 chipset, and thus I'm able to use the open-source drivers from the rt2x00 project -- which work flawlessly; Ndiswrapper is a mixed bag generally. I got lucky with my choice of wireless adaptor, but still -- like someone above said -- we should be focusing on making native Linux drivers for these adaptors and not be content with stopgaps such as Ndiswrapper.
Sure he denounced NDISWrapper, but does he reject AND denounce it? The American voters want to know!
But apart from that, I agree with your point that it is a best practice to develop applications on top of cross-platform APIs with Free implementations, such as SDL, Allegro, wxWidgets, Qt, or Gtk+. And in a way, even DirectX could be considered such an API because of Winelib.
The above discussion applies to applications. I have no idea how it applies to kernel modules.
Linux kernels dont come with "NVidia" drivers. Linux kernels come with "generic card support" which all video cards handle in order to display anything at boot time, before drivers have been loaded. Then, the operating system loads the next video card driver layer on top of that after that while the OS starts. this doesn't mean the driver was in the kernel.
-- Betting on the survival of the media industry is a serious risk. I advise investing elsewhere.
Since ndiswrapper taints itself when it loads a proprietary NDIS module
Can someone explain to me how creating a computability layer for a proprietary model inherently violates GPL? Linus is trying to claim that loading the Windows Driver violates GPL. But I really fail to see how, ndiswrapper is a computability layer, and itself GPL'd, the windows driver is not loaded into the kernel like other modules it is sandboxed by ndiswrapper. It edges towards that gray area of the GPL, but itself doesn't violate it.
If i had one dollar for every brain you dont have, i would have $1.
Thank God the kernel is GPL. I can go in there and remove all this stupid GPLONLY garbage.
I may be being stupid here, but I'm trying to follow this and not getting it. Please correct where my chain of logic is going awry.
1) the point of GPL that you can't distribute code that's derived from GPL code under anything other than the GPL.
2) Linking against code is considered 'derivative'. Using a public interface is not.
3) NDISWrapper links against the GPL'd kernel.
4) NDISWrapper is required to release under GPL and does so.
5) NDISWrapper uses the public interface of the binary driver
6) This imposes no license requirements on NDISwrapper
7) No license violations have occurred.
Even if Linus doesn't like it, it doesn't seem like there's anything in the GPL that specifically stipulates that you can't both link against GPL'd code and use the public interface of non-GPL'd code, and if there is, it will cause a LOT of problems in LinuxLand. Am I wrong?
I think almost all of these types of problems come down to the fact that, for copyright law with respect to computer software, the most *sane* approach is that linking does not create a derivative work, and therefor license terms cannot be applied to other works which link to the licensed work. NOTE: I am not a lawyer, this is not a statement of fact regarding current law, this is a statement of personal opinion. In otherwords, my opinion is that, if my view of copyright were adopted, there would be no GPL, only the LGPL. That is to say, since the only difference between the GPL and LGPL is the linking clause, and since I do not believe copyright should extend to other linked works, the GPL 'decays' to become the same thing as the LGPL.
Let me state it this way: It is my understanding that copyright law, currently, has no notion of 'linking'. Copyright covers copying material, or creating derivative works (such as translations, modified versions, etc). I don't know the full definition of derived work (I've tried to research it before, and it appears to get a bit complicated), but it is my understanding that the basic principle of a derived work is that it contains all or part of the work from which it is derived. For example, a translation is a derived work because, while all the words may be literally different, being in a different language, the works still essentially contains all the ideas and expressions from the original work.
It's also my understanding that copyright does not govern what you can and cannot do with with copyrighted work, except to the extent that you cannot copy, distribute, or perform for other people, the copyrighted work or distribute derivatives without permission (I think you can create derivatives without permission, even, you just can't distribute/copy/perform that derivative). So, copyright doesn't give me the power to say you can't 'link' your work with mine, unless such 'linking' creates a derivative and you then subsequently distribute/copy/perform that derivative work (so even if a derivative is created on the on the end-user computer, which I believe is not the case, I don't think copyright law would prohibit that).
The thing about software which dynamically links other software is, the two software works are fundamentally almost completely separate works, if I understand dynamic linking correctly. They are distributed separately (or at least, *can be* distributed separately), they are loaded into memory separately, and the works are never really combined, even in computer memory, I believe. Is that not correct? My understanding of 'dynamic linking' is that the computer is running code in one segment of memory, and encounters an instructions which just causes it to jump to another part of memory and start executing what's there, and when finished executing the linked function, to return to the original memory location + 1. If that is, in fact, the case, then it's rather like a note in a book which says, "Go read such-and-such magazine article, then return to this page and continue reading". Even if my book makes *no sense* unless you read the article I put the note in for, my book is still not a derivative, because it contains no copy of the magazine article. (I mention that last part because I've read where Linus, and some other people, make the claim that the test for derivative work should be whether software can run without the linked software - I personally think that is an irrelevant fact, because where there is no copying, there can be no violation of copyright).
Anyhow, I just ultimately believe that all this stuff about restricting what symbols can and can't be used by non-GPL software is just a mess, and not reasonable. I think the idea that because one work links another work, that the author of the linked work gets some kind of control over the second work is not reasonable. Separate works should have separate copyrights which do not touch each other AT ALL.
Now, it's my understanding that all this linking stuff vis-a-vis the GPL has never
A very hard to master computer driving simulation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Prix_Legends
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
Since "you" is ambiguous referring to an AC, I will post my $.02 worth of searching.
FCC Rules on FOSS and Software-Defined Radio
Cognitive Radio Technologies and Software Defined Radios
As far as I can gather the main problem is that part of the licensing requirements is that "security measures" that need to be in place to prevent use of the device outside the specifications for which it is licensed.
With the boundary between driver software on the computer vs. firmware on the device shifting ever more away from the device, it becomes harder to implement these security measures.
The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
GPLONLY variables from the kernel is what was denied. The source code and project license seem to be ok as being stated as GPL.
NDISWrapper is the only thing that can run tons of devices... Ohwell...
Look, this sounds like some kind of rather draconian DRM!
If the GPLONLY code is used to restrict the performance or capability of code that is not released under the GPL, then the GPLONLY code needs to be removed forthwith - I Cannot see how it is compatible with the GPL itself, or with the philosophy of Open Source. Really, isn't "hidden interfaces" what we all hate about Microsoft, and were really annoyed to find in OSX last week??
DRM - Just Say No!!!
In the sort term, the code that checks this flag should be changed to just "return TRUE;", and eventually, all traces of it removed. What were they thinking??
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=476560&cid=22656000
by F452 (97091) Alter Relationship on 14:11 Wednesday 05 March 2008
Cheers to F452 for this information.
Yet Socrates himself is particularly missed.
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed.
if ndiswrapper gets a free pass on this, whats stopping anything and anyone to write a wrapper that access the gpl hooks, and then have a binary module at the other end?
would that not be a run around the whole point of the gpl only hooks in the first place?
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Hey,
.so and source code in the same zip file, CD, or installer as my seperate program, does that make the zip file, CD, or installer a derivative work? I know Linus has talked about that issue before, which he refers to as 'mere aggregation', which I believe is a reference to the GPL which explicitely allows mere aggregation. Where do you draw the line between aggregation and derivation? Maybe Rosen's suggestion is the simplest way to resolve the question, but it makes the GPL very weak, as a result.
Thanks for the link to the discussion on Rosenlaw. That's a great link. I'm not sure I *completely* agree with Rosen - the one point where I think he might lose the argument is that statically-linked binaries are not derivatives. I understand where he's coming from - he's trying to find the simplest definition of derivative work.
But the problem is, a statically linked binary *does* contain your original work in part or in whole. In my earlier post, I put forth a statement of principle that, where there is no copying, there can be no copyright infringement. I think most reasonable people can say that the converse of that holds as well - where there is copying (without permission), there is copyright infringement.
Although, I suppose possibly what Rosen is getting at is that it would be possible for me to ship the original static library source code, and so fulfil the obligations of the GPL wrt providing access to the source code for the original work, and that my binary is not a derivative work. But, I think that still may be a weak argument.
Man, I don't know. It does get rather complicated. I mean if I dynamically link, and distribute the GPL
But, we can't let the GPL be too strong, either. I really think these issues of loading proprietary drivers with GPL wrappers like NDISWrapper really expose the absurdity of the 'dynamic linking violates the GPL' idea, too.
I didn't know Linus (or anyone else) could control my ability to release my code under GPL. Assuming that its my code and I didn't swipe it from someone else (violating some other copyright ) I can choose the GPL and there's not much anyone else can do.
The code I release under the GPL may have nothing whatsoever to do with Linux, Linus, *NIX-like operaing systems or whatever.
What Linus does have power over is the trademark 'Linux'. He can, if he desires, deny the right to use that name for any product that doesn't meet his standards, including those that bundle NDISwrapper in the kernel source.
I'm not certain what control Linus has over my building/installing a Linux kernel that complies with his wishes (i.e. no NDSIwrapper) and then my downloading/building/installing NDISwrapper on my own system for my own use.
Have gnu, will travel.
Bzzt - wrong. GPL is a one way street, not a two way street. There are no negative requirements in the GPL. *Anything* can be placed under the GPL.
Where GPL requirements come into play is that the GPL sometimes requires code to be placed under the GPL. Code that is derived from GPL licensed code *must* be placed under the GPL. Derived code has been held to be both code that is a modification of a piece of code *and* code that is linked to and depended on, like a library. It's a one way street, though. If you make something like ndiswrapper it can be released under the GPL. The fact the ndiswrapper provides functions to proprietary code doesn't have any bearing on its GPL status. And, the fact that proprietary code is now linked to ndiswrapper doesn't force the proprietary code to become GPL'd - it doesn't depend on ndiswrapper and it wasn't linked with ndiswrapper by its creator and distributor.
People who know the truth and are sure of themselves don't have to use insults like you do. Blame shifting and malice are for the desperate:
There is no "Microsoft bugs and malice" involved in an interface specification and any bugs occuring [sic] would be solely the domain of either poor implementation of NDIS or by bugs explicitely [sic] in the vendor-provided network driver. You're a complete tool to suggest otherwise. There is no "firmware game", and these network cards aren't braindead - you are.
If I'm a braindead tool, Microsoft is in big trouble because anyone can verify what I did. Firmware, like this, is loaded in Windows with software that's nothing more than SDK parts provided by MickeySoft. Bugs come from the clowns who play, the malice is all from Redmond. The game is painfully obvious.
But the dam has given way. Hardware that sucks does not sell, regardless of who's really at fault. Companies playing the Microsoft game are having trouble but people selling software that works with free software are doing well. Things are not perfect by a long shot but Vista's failure to generate substantial income for Microsoft's partners has changed the game forever. Here's the winner:
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
But my money would be on that you can, as long as the binary you're providing doesn't contain any GPL code, just names of symbols to lookup. (Otherwise, we could turn this around on its head --the windows drivers are the ones in the wrong because they can link against ndiswrapper, a GPL program, and therefore all of the applicable vendors must now release their driver source code!) That sounds wrong to me and essentially makes LGPL = GPL.
Yup, that's exactly what I'm saying. Except LGPL also permits static linking, for whatever that's worth. Of course it's not what certain GPL promoters want it to mean, and really I'm sympathetic to their cause, but there are limits to what you can claim as "derived". IMHO, those limits allow a symbol table without making it a "derived work". Otherwise we wouldn't be allowed to use reverse-engineered protocols and file formats, which are a well established freedom for compatibility and interoperability.
This is all relative to the GPL 2.0 btw, I don't know the 3.0 very well. But take this comment from the FSF FAQ:
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the `main' function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case.So they want to have a blurry definition depending on how extensively you use the library, and I don't think that will stand up very well.
Personally, I would put the blurry line as a matter of distribution... if you distribute your executable bundled with the GPL'd library, then you are providing a derived work. If you require end users to acquire and install the library themselves, then you are linking against a specification, and the user is free to choose the implementation. Further, any potential license violation is at the user's end, for they were the one to mix the GPL'd library with the proprietary executable. For example, OS X masquerading BSD libedit as GNU readline.
How is the Ndiswrapper different from the ELF loader in the respect that it can load non GPL software. The ELF loader is not placed under these restrictions afaik.
He won't do that because, he can't.
Amateur radio is prohibited from using encryption on the public airwaves, at least not unless you also provide the key. Generally, the FCC regulates to favor those who build their own equipment and systems, (even outside of amateur, for all the trolls I know I'm going to get for that, I'd provide you with a link, but, as I'm currently getting my source from a book, that won't work) so, obviously these systems can be open-sourced for others to try building themselves. (Another point, if it were illegal to open-source the equipment/software, why has openwrt not been shut down?)
The elf loader loads non gpl software INTO the kernel?
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
We are inside a cardboard box. While the walls and floor are GPL-licenced, the top ceiling is too, with a glitch. Instead of expensive glueing system to close the box, we use ducktape. Of course when we open the box, ductape ruins some of the coating outside but it works the same way as the glue which does not break coating.
Linus is trying to keep GPL pure and perhaps this wrapper in the future could break some apps and usability. This is why he prefers emulation.
hey, it's only 8 cents a day, over 3 years. So I'm sure you won't mind, you fucking douche.
The normal people of the world, who actually need to get shit done with their Linux machines, and know that manufacturers don't get it, and don't give a shit... will continue to use NDISWrapper and ignore it's GPL status or anything else related to it.
They'll happily run native drivers if the kernel devs can ever figure them out, but meanwhile they've got shit to do... and no fiscal or moral reason to care.
+++OK ATH
"Funny, I saw Stallman give a speech, and he basically said that he started hating proprietary software specifically when a printer failed to work with a new computer setup. Had the driver been open, he could have fixed it. Had the OS been open, he could have fixed it to be compatible. Neither was, so he couldn't."
I guess it is a good thing that was back when printers where expensive.
What do you do today if the your printer doesn't work with your OS? Buy a printer that does. In fact that is the very advice that you will get from the FOSS crowd. You should only buy devices that have not just working drivers but working drivers that are FOSS...
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion