On Monday 22 January 2007 16:21, you wrote:
On 1/22/07, Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:
Nobody disputes that the code links to Linux, which the GPL forbids. By using internal, unfixed function calls, it is also a derivative work.
The GPL forbids linking (of any kind) with incompatibly licensed code.
From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html I read:
[quote] To copyleft a program, we first state that it is copyrighted; then we add distribution terms, which are a legal instrument that gives everyone the rights to use, modify, and redistribute the program's code or any program derived from it but only if the distribution terms are unchanged. Thus, the code and the freedoms become legally inseparable. [/quote]
I think it would be a hard argument to say that software that makes calls into GPL code as being "derived from it."
Using an internal GPL'd API, it does.
If we make the argument that calling GPL code from closed code violates it, or vica versa, then we have to show that nsidwrapper and WINE violate it too.
ndiswrapper is in a grey area since, at least in theory, a GPL-compatible NDIS driver exists.
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.