This is Linux project to support WLAN cards that there is no binary or source or even technical data available. I’d like to eventually install Haiku on a Intel Centrino Laptop that I’ll be purchasing within the next month. Although Intel is working with the community to support their miniPCI WLAN (integrated with all Centrino laptops) on Linux, I doubt that they would support a project like that for Be/Haiku. Hence, an NDIS wrapper might be the best that we can do.
Anyone have any ideas?
I looked at this ndis-wrapper project too.
If someone can do the same for BeOS, I agree, it’ll be a great addition to our network drivers pool.
That’s not a networking kit team task planned for R1, thought.
Unless someone step in.
This would be nice to have does anyone know if it’s GPL
This would be nice to have does anyone know if it's GPL
does that matter?
TekMate wrote:This would be nice to have does anyone know if it's GPLdoes that matter?
GPL is not compatible with MIT. So, if it needs to be in Haiku’s source tree, it does matter very much.
Suppafly wrote:TekMate wrote:This would be nice to have does anyone know if it's GPLdoes that matter?
GPL is not compatible with MIT. So, if it needs to be in Haiku’s source tree, it does matter very much.
BaSH is GPL, vim is GPL, diff/file/sharutils are GPL… they’re all in the tree
And theres currently two NDIS wrappers around, one GPL OSS one and one commercial one (Scitech).
SigmaNunki wrote:Suppafly wrote:TekMate wrote:This would be nice to have does anyone know if it's GPLdoes that matter?
GPL is not compatible with MIT. So, if it needs to be in Haiku’s source tree, it does matter very much.
BaSH is GPL, vim is GPL, diff/file/sharutils are GPL… they’re all in the tree
And theres currently two NDIS wrappers around, one GPL OSS one and one commercial one (Scitech).
Very well, technically if you have GPL in you source tree and it doesn’t touch anything (link static OR shared) then all is well. If you static link to GPL’d code you have to GPL your code, period. Now if the code is LGPL you are allowed to dynamically link to it and that’s all good, but again if you statically link to it you must LGPL your code as well.
So, since BaSH, Vim aren’t linked by any Haiku code the Haiku source is safe. But, one must be careful not to link (in any way) to any GPL code or only dynamically link to LGPL code. Otherwise you’ll have the FSF after you if anyone finds out as then this project must then change its license from the liberal MIT to the forced open source the the *GPL licenses are.
As one can tell, I’m not fond of the GPL or LGPL.
MYOB wrote:SigmaNunki wrote:Suppafly wrote:TekMate wrote:This would be nice to have does anyone know if it's GPLdoes that matter?
GPL is not compatible with MIT. So, if it needs to be in Haiku’s source tree, it does matter very much.
BaSH is GPL, vim is GPL, diff/file/sharutils are GPL… they’re all in the tree
And theres currently two NDIS wrappers around, one GPL OSS one and one commercial one (Scitech).
Very well, technically if you have GPL in you source tree and it doesn’t touch anything (link static OR shared) then all is well. If you static link to GPL’d code you have to GPL your code, period. Now if the code is LGPL you are allowed to dynamically link to it and that’s all good, but again if you statically link to it you must LGPL your code as well.
So, since BaSH, Vim aren’t linked by any Haiku code the Haiku source is safe. But, one must be careful not to link (in any way) to any GPL code or only dynamically link to LGPL code. Otherwise you’ll have the FSF after you if anyone finds out as then this project must then change its license from the liberal MIT to the forced open source the the *GPL licenses are.
As one can tell, I’m not fond of the GPL or LGPL.
Also to point out that the Haiku build scripts have a flag to turn off GPL items if necessary… this allows the entire build to occur without building any GPL’d code if desired. I suspect it is important that any GPL code be checked into the GPL part of the tree to keep it separated from the truly free code.
Also to point out that the Haiku build scripts have a flag to turn off GPL items if necessary... this allows the entire build to occur without building any GPL'd code if desired. I suspect it is important that any GPL code be checked into the GPL part of the tree to keep it separated from the truly free code.
Yes, MIT = truely free.
Things get alittle foggy here though. If the tree has enabled something in the actual Haiku side to be linked to something that is GPL’d then that on the Haiku side must as well be GPL’d. The GPL kind of acts like a virus, touch it once and you’re infected for life. So, I sincerely hope that the GPL stuff is only things like vim, The only way to fix it is to go back in the CVS to a date before it happened and start from there. God I hate the GPL.
Richard Stallman (I think that’s who started the whole thing) is quite proud that readline has forced the GPL on a many people. Irritates me to no end.
SigmaNunki wrote:MYOB wrote:SigmaNunki wrote:Suppafly wrote:TekMate wrote:This would be nice to have does anyone know if it's GPLdoes that matter?
GPL is not compatible with MIT. So, if it needs to be in Haiku’s source tree, it does matter very much.
BaSH is GPL, vim is GPL, diff/file/sharutils are GPL… they’re all in the tree
And theres currently two NDIS wrappers around, one GPL OSS one and one commercial one (Scitech).
Very well, technically if you have GPL in you source tree and it doesn’t touch anything (link static OR shared) then all is well. If you static link to GPL’d code you have to GPL your code, period. Now if the code is LGPL you are allowed to dynamically link to it and that’s all good, but again if you statically link to it you must LGPL your code as well.
So, since BaSH, Vim aren’t linked by any Haiku code the Haiku source is safe. But, one must be careful not to link (in any way) to any GPL code or only dynamically link to LGPL code. Otherwise you’ll have the FSF after you if anyone finds out as then this project must then change its license from the liberal MIT to the forced open source the the *GPL licenses are.
As one can tell, I’m not fond of the GPL or LGPL.
Also to point out that the Haiku build scripts have a flag to turn off GPL items if necessary… this allows the entire build to occur without building any GPL’d code if desired. I suspect it is important that any GPL code be checked into the GPL part of the tree to keep it separated from the truly free code.
Actually, that only turns off the AC3 decoder, and not the other gobs of GPL’ed code.
Actually, that only turns off the AC3 decoder, and not the other gobs of GPL'ed code.
Oh… I guess that was a little misleading then 
I remembered you posted that info is in this thread: http://www.haiku-os.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=102&highlight=gpl
thanks for the clarification 
<i>The GPL kind of acts like a virus, touch it once and you’re infected for life. So, I sincerely hope that the GPL stuff is only things like vim, The only way to fix it is to go back in the CVS to a date before it happened and start from there</i>
That is not true. If you link against GPL software in a way that you have to release your programs under the GPL, you can always take out the dependencies on GPL software and release your software under any license you want. Only the release which used GPL code will always be available under the GPL. BUT you’re not forced to stick with the General Public License forever if you take all GPL code out.
So going back in the CVS is not the only solution.
I have no problem with the GPL, i just like MIT / BSD more because they are more anarchist.
That is not true. If you link against GPL software in a way that you have to release your programs under the GPL, you can always take out the dependencies on GPL software and release your software under any license you want. Only the release which used GPL code will always be available under the GPL. BUT you're not forced to stick with the General Public License forever if you take all GPL code out. So going back in the CVS is not the only solution.
I have no problem with the GPL, i just like MIT / BSD more because they are more anarchist.
And how is the MIT/BSD licenses anarchistic at all? Are you planning to overthrow a government through the MIT or BSD license?
A paraphrase of a quote (author unknown to me):
“A young man who is not a communist has no heart, an old man who is a communist has no brain.”
Suppafly wrote:TekMate wrote:This would be nice to have does anyone know if it's GPLdoes that matter?
GPL is not compatible with MIT. So, if it needs to be in Haiku’s source tree, it does matter very much.
no it doesn’t.
The GPL kind of acts like a virus, touch it once and you're infected for life. So, I sincerely hope that the GPL stuff is only things like vim, The only way to fix it is to go back in the CVS to a date before it happened and start from there. God I hate the GPL.Richard Stallman (I think that’s who started the whole thing) is quite proud that readline has forced the GPL on a many people. Irritates me to no end.
Bullshit. The GPL hasn’t been forced on anyone. Anyone that doesn’t like the terms of the gpl can cease distributing code that includes it OR release their code as GPL. If you don’t understand something, it is best to do some research instead of spouting off unsubstanciated trolls. The GNU website has a very verbose faq explaining the gpl and groklaw has had some good articles further clarifying several of the commonly missunderstood aspects of the gpl.
theturner wrote:I entirely disagree. Once your code is GPL it is GPL. The only way to get rid of it is to go back, period. The only way around it is if you yourself GPL'd the code that didn't depend on anything else GPL'd. Then under those conditions, since you are the author, you have the right to change the license if you want. But still must leave the GPL'd code out there because of that license. This is only because the original author maintains the copyright.That is not true. If you link against GPL software in a way that you have to release your programs under the GPL, you can always take out the dependencies on GPL software and release your software under any license you want. Only the release which used GPL code will always be available under the GPL. BUT you're not forced to stick with the General Public License forever if you take all GPL code out. So going back in the CVS is not the only solution.
You can disagree all you want, but it doesn’t make you correct.
You can disagree all you want, but it doesn't make you correct.
Since you have gotten quite combative (in your first reply to me I might mention) I’ll mention this. You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. So, if you want to discuss, chill out. And what did I do to deserver this anyway?
I think I should clarify some things that you have missed.
I call the GPL the assholes because is DOES force people who wish to use a GPL’d peice of code in whatever way to make there code GPL as well, period, end of story. That is forcing people to do something that they don’t want to do (ie if you use readline in your program you are forced to GPL your code, period, etc whether you dynamically link to it or not)… The MIT and BSD licenses don’t do this which is why I consicer them truely free (ie the author still maintains control of his/her choice of license).
The only way the GPL or LGPL is not forced on someone is if they write a peice of code without any dependancies that are GPL’d or LGPL’d. Then they get a choice, but then again, this was exactly what I was not getting at. Go back and read my posts.
And by the way, I’ve read some very long threads and article discussing the implications of linking to libs that are GPL’d or LGPL’d and the conclusions were if it is GPL’d you must GPL your code. If the lib is LGPL’d and you static link to it then you must LGPL as well, but if you dynamically link to it you don’t have to. The latter is disputed by the GNU foundation though and people are looking into things.
I have no interest in participating what will turn into a flame war if you reply with the same tone as you did here. So, if you do reply to this chill out and be civil or I will not participate.
Suppafly wrote:Gee, now I'm convinced.You can disagree all you want, but it doesn't make you correct.Since you have gotten quite combative (in your first reply to me I might mention) I’ll mention this. You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. So, if you want to discuss, chill out. And what did I do to deserver this anyway?
I think I should clarify some things that you have missed.
I call the GPL the assholes because is DOES force people who wish to use a GPL’d peice of code in whatever way to make there code GPL as well, period, end of story. That is forcing people to do something that they don’t want to do (ie if you use readline in your program you are forced to GPL your code, period, etc whether you dynamically link to it or not)… The MIT and BSD licenses don’t do this which is why I consicer them truely free (ie the author still maintains control of his/her choice of license).
The only way the GPL or LGPL is not forced on someone is if they write a peice of code without any dependancies that are GPL’d or LGPL’d. Then they get a choice, but then again, this was exactly what I was not getting at. Go back and read my posts.
And by the way, I’ve read some very long threads and article discussing the implications of linking to libs that are GPL’d or LGPL’d and the conclusions were if it is GPL’d you must GPL your code. If the lib is LGPL’d and you static link to it then you must LGPL as well, but if you dynamically link to it you don’t have to. The latter is disputed by the GNU foundation though and people are looking into things.
I have no interest in participating what will turn into a flame war if you reply with the same tone as you did here. So, if you do reply to this chill out and be civil or I will not participate.
I’m certainly no expert on this topic myself, but I suspect your view is slightly skewed as any author that licenses his code under GPL while it doesn’t link to any other GPL code, still has the right to change the license if he/she wishes (as is sometimes done when commercial entities “hire” a developer to port their GPL code for commercial uses) In this way, if you link to GPL code, and then later remove all dependencies on the GPL code, the code you wrote is still yours and you can release it under any license you wish.
In any case, I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m completely off base…
I'm certainly no expert on this topic myself, but I suspect your view is slightly skewed as any author that licenses his code under GPL while it doesn't link to any other GPL code, still has the right to change the license if he/she wishes (as is sometimes done when commercial entities "hire" a developer to port their GPL code for commercial uses)
In this way, if you link to GPL code, and then later remove all dependencies on the GPL code, the code you wrote is still yours and you can release it under any license you wish.
Calm down guys… The GPL / MIT license debate has gone on for quite a while now… Every point that’s been covered here has been on the mailing lists for some time. We’re getting away from answering the original question now… and I think that can be done without childish bickering, although defending your point of view is certainly acceptable. Let’s get back on course with this thread… Otherwise, I hold the ultimate power in this little ‘delete’ button.