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."

Comments

Re:Linus making friends fast

[Brian Gordon]

This is stupid, people are trying to release the code of the project to the community and the restrictive terms of the GPL is preventing them. I know slashdot is heavily GPL-supportive, but a few more stories like these and maybe we'll see some more mainstream support for permissive licenses.

Big deal.

[HellYeahAutomaton]

Why should this be important? GPL is less enforceable than cops catching speeders. Linus is tilting at windmills a bit too much.

Re:Try understanding the issue.

[saleenS281]

Right, because of the droves of people lining up to use linux on their laptop without a wireless driver, and willing to complain to mfg's about it.

Well then, Who put this DRM in the linux kernel?

[robbak]

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??