Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.hawaii.edu!ames!olivea!wetware!nntp-hub.barrnet.net!inet-nntp-gw-1.us.oracle.com!news.caldera.com!park.uvsc.edu!usenet
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD
Date: 12 Dec 1995 05:46:59 GMT
Organization: Utah Valley State College, Orem, Utah
Lines: 80
Message-ID: <4aj50j$g98@park.uvsc.edu>
References: <489kuu$rbo@pelican.cs.ucla.edu> <4a2kme$32d@josie.abo.fi> <DJ6IJE.78D@nntpa.cb.att.com> <4a54u5$jj5@josie.abo.fi> <DJ8DMn.3oM@nntpa.cb.att.com> <4aa6k2$9et@josie.abo.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hecate.artisoft.com
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.advocacy:29948 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:10191
mandtbac@news.abo.fi (Mats Andtbacka) wrote:
]
] John S. Dyson, in <DJ8DMn.3oM@nntpa.cb.att.com>:
] >How do I know that, since the files are seperable from the rest of the
] >kernel?
]
] Define "separable". Of course you can distribute them each on a floppy
] by themselves, but that would make no sense; one source file doth not
] a kernel make. What would be the point?
John is talking about agregation.
Basically, I can't use a Linux driver in my commercial OS because
it's GPL'ed, and I'd have to give you source to my commercial OS.
I have personally suggested in the past that LGPL be used for
drivers for Linux so that they may be loaded as modules and
provided seperately without requiring OS source to be distributed.
] >The distribution of source code "requirement" still gets in my way.
]
] Your way must be very narrow, John, that something so trifling can
] obstruct it.
Actually, I'm allowed to distribute DES outside the US as long
as long as it is externally inaccessable except for password
verification... ie: no "crypt" command or library.
Which means I can make a binary distribution of the DES-using
command files for BSD, but not one for Linux.
] Let's say you're distributing a program in binary form, OK? So you're
] somehow getting a machine readable file (the executable) of something
] between a few KB's and a few MB's in size from you to the people who
] want to use it. Usually, the machine readable (compressed) source will
] be between the same size to seldom more than ten times that size; in
] practice, given that you'll want to distribute documentation as well,
] your bandwidth would have to be *extremely* limited for source
] distribution to be a technical problem.
]
] If it were a legal problem I could understand it; but if so, I fail to
] see how binary distribution would not also be a legal problem of at
] least as great a magnitude.
Now lets say it's a boot ROM for 3C509 boards.
Now do you see the problem?
] >But what about applications that might be developed and used for long
] >periods. Note that those can be built with GPL'ed libraries.
]
] The LGPL is a different story; I'm not up to its specifics (I've never
] yet had much cause to make or recompile shared libs). Applications
] that might be in use for long times you'd _definitely_ want to have
] source for, otherwise in a few years changing hardware platform might
] prove a _real_ pain!
This is actually implementation specific. For most shared library
implementations, the datafrom the library is linked into the image
and only the code is shared.
Consider a shared library function that references local static
data. Now say one of the revisions causes the data to be used
via a different access mechanism, or the data is renamed. Or you
add ned data items that the new library expects to find in the
image once it is mapped in.
Most shared library implemenations do not meet the terms of LGPL
for "relinkability", FYI.
I have repeatedly asked for clarification on shared libraries,
in particular (which LGPL does not directly address), with no
success.
Terry Lambert
terry@cs.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.