> I wouldn't quite say that. I wasn't going to comment, but...personally, > I actually disagree with the assertions that ndiswrapper isn't causing > proprietary code to link against GPL functions in the kernel (how is > an NDIS implementation any different than a shim layer provided to > load a graphics driver?), but I wasn't trying to make that point.
By that logic, the kernel should always be tainted since it could potentially always be linked to non-GPL code. The ndiswrapper code is just like the kernel. It is GPL, but it could be linked to non-free code. Any reason why ndiswrapper should be tainted would equally well argue that any kernel with module-loading capability should be tainted. Somebody might load a non-free module. DS -- 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/