Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!news00.sunet.se!sunic!news99.sunet.se!news.funet.fi!news.abo.fi!not-for-mail
From: mandtbac@news.abo.fi (Mats Andtbacka)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD
Followup-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Date: 12 Dec 1995 20:43:28 GMT
Organization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.
Lines: 66
Distribution: comp
Message-ID: <4akphg$9ja@josie.abo.fi>
References: <489kuu$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$9et@josie.abo.fi> <4aj50j$g98@park.uvsc.edu>
Reply-To: mandtbac@abo.fi
NNTP-Posting-Host: zorn.abo.fi
X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950520BETA PL0]
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.advocacy:30101 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:10307
Terry Lambert, in <4aj50j$g98@park.uvsc.edu>:
>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.
Ah, such that the entire commercial OS would become a "derivative
work" of the one GPL'ed driver? IMHO that seems an excessively anal
definition of "derivative work", but if half of what I hear of US
legal situations is true, who am I to tell...
>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.
That seems a good suggestion, especially considering the loadable-
module concept seems to be gaining ground quickly. I wonder if
existing drivers can easily be taken out of the GPL and put under the
LGPL; I'll have to read the LGPL one of these days...
[...]
>] 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?
Uh, not really. If I were distributing something like that GPL'ed I'd
supply the source code as a printed listing; since it's burned into
ROM and not easily alterable anyway, Stallman and his media
customarily used for interchange would be taking a hike IMNSHO in that
very particular situation; YMMV.
...But then, the legal climate where I am is probably significantly
different from yours, so my opinion might be useless over there...
[...]
>] 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.
[...]
>Most shared library implemenations do not meet the terms of LGPL
>for "relinkability", FYI.
Seems to me the FSF has some clarifying to do, then. Best of luck to
them.
--
" ... got to contaminate to alleviate this loneliness
i now know the depths i reach are limitless... "
-- nin