| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:55:49 +1030 From: David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com> To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org> CC: Giridhar Pemmasani <pgiri@...oo.com>, Pavel Roskin <proski@....org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jon Masters <jonathan@...masters.org>, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, rms@....org Subject: Re: ndiswrapper and GPL-only symbols redux Adrian Bunk wrote: > IANAL, but I have serious doubts whether putting some glue layer between > the GPL'ed code and the code with a not GPL compatible licence is really > a legally effictive way of circumventing the GPL. Just to refresh my memory, I re-read the GPLv2, and specifically the licence (COPYING file) that comes with Linux 2.6.23, and I see nothing in it that suggests shims, wrappers or other glue-layers are forbidden. I see exactly the opposite. This idea that some symbols may only be dynamically bound to GPL code is fallacy. In the preamble to GPLv2 are words which make the position clear: "the GNU General Public icense is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software" Childish games, for example blacklisting ndiswrapper, can be defeated, using patches, by authors of affected programs or anyone else. That's the freedom guaranteed by GPL. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists