from the libertarian newspaper

[Jon Pruente]

On 1/22/07, Luke -Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> Using an internal GPL'd API, it does.

The question is what do you mean by use?  This is where I lose track
from what most people seem to write about it.  Use, as in taking the
API code and using it and modifiying it in the driver, or using the
code as in making API calls to it?

> ndiswrapper is in a grey area since, at least in theory, a GPL-compatible NDIS
> driver exists.

But, that GPL compatible NDIS driver ends up executing closed code,
thus it's whole purpose.  That still makes a point out of the API
"use" distinction.  It's generating use of otherwise incompatible
hardware under the GPL kernel, through the use of closed drivers.  The
difference is that NDISwrapper is a basic frame work for drivers,
while nVidia and ATI use their own framework to link to specific
points of the kernel.


> WINE is not GPL'd, but even if it were, it would be a similar situation to
> ndiswrapper-- "GPL'd" software does exist built on the Win32 API.
>

For WINE to function it must make calls into all sorts of areas of GPL
code.  How is it different to have a graphics routine call from a
Win32 program be redirected to a GPL video driver, or even have a
Win32 program make a transfer through the network of the host Linux
system than it is for nVidia or ATI to make drivers that take input
from GPL code to display on their hardware?  All have to interact with
a GPL API at some point.  Where do we draw the line?  Making calls to
the API is one thing.  Building in the actual code to the API is
another.  That's the distinction I've been pointing out.  Modifying
code is different than pointing data streams and variable values at
locations used by code under the GPL.