Re: incorrect taint of ndiswrapper

From: Gianluca Alberici
Date: Thu Oct 26 2006 - 09:24:25 EST


Thierry Vignaud wrote:

David Weinehall <tao@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:



Personally I feel that no matter if they are legal or not, we
should not cater to such drivers in the first place. If it's
trickier to use Windows API-drivers under Linux than to write a
native Linux driver, big deal... We don't want Windows-drivers.
We want native drivers.


Neither taint nor _GPL are intended to stop people doing things
that, in the eyes of the masses, are stupid. The taint mark is
there to ensure that they don't harm the rest of us. The FSF view
of freedom is freedom to modify not freedom to modify in a manner
approved by some defining body.


Hence my use of the world "Personally". It's my own opinion that we
shouldn't support Windows API-drivers. I don't think this has
anything to do with the FSF view on freedom. This has to do with
the freedom to make a sound technical decision.



and your freedom to do whatever you want at home isn't restricted by
the tainting.


In fact it is now, because ndiswrapper doesnt load on 2.6.19.
The fact: there's a lot of people who are not gonna be using his wlan
unless they are able to modify the sources.
I wouldnt forget that ndiswrapper is a tool which solves problems. Linux
diffusion is affected by compatibility issues.
I really cant see the benefit for Linux in stop supporting windows NDIS
drivers...there's a lot of hardware which works only by that.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/




-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/