Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.iquest.net!not-for-mail From: "John S. Dyson" <dyson@freebsd.org> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy Subject: Re: Linux vs whatever Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 18:39:44 -0500 Organization: John S. Dyson's home machine Lines: 50 Message-ID: <32EE8E40.167EB0E7@freebsd.org> References: <32DFFEAB.7704@usa.net> <5qC7y0gTzDLB091yn@ibm.net> <5ciraf$gs@cynic.portal.ca> <32EE0B70.1657@ml.com> <5claa2$jq1@cynic.portal.ca> <5clvmp$jjs@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: dyson.iquest.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (X11; I; FreeBSD 3.0-CURRENT i386) Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.misc:154829 comp.os.linux.networking:66471 comp.os.linux.setup:94373 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:5773 comp.unix.bsd.misc:2087 comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy:51247 comp.os.os2.advocacy:264084 J Gunthorpe wrote: > > > Hm, that does sound pretty bad, and does limit the usefullness of the > GLP'd code. > I agree, except... > > However I have a question, if you take a GPL'd code base and > make it into a library (shared or otherwise) and then link to that library > is it required to distribute the code of the new executable? > GPL, you will likely have to redistribute the source. There is a modified GPL, called LGPL that would allow you to keep some control over your IP. > > If this is so, then how can anyone make any money in linux? I assume stuff > like the X-Windows libraries, shared C libraries, Sockets libs etc etc are > all GPL'd? (In which case wouldn't NetScape, ID and others be violating > the GPL by releasing ported code that runs on linux without source?) > The LIBC in Linux is LGPLed (I think), and the OS allows you to write any (reasonable) program that doesn't use any proprietary interfaces and continue control of your IP. Linus has made an exception to allow for certain relief from GPL on the kernel module interface (the kernel is NOT LGPLed, but GPLed) -- but that would only apply to code that he wrote or owns. So, using Linux as an OS (like SCO, Unixware or NT) you are in pretty good shape commercializing on it. The problems come in when you want to add significant amounts of IP to Linux (the kernel, or GPLed utilities), then the waters about what you must disclose becomes muddied. My position about GPLed kernels is that many times you need to modify the kernel in order to incorporate the kernel into product. Those modifications may or may not include significant amounts of research and development. Many companies (read investors) aren't interested in being compelled to give away the fruits of that work. Under GPL, you can be compelled to do so. There are licensing terms under which there is no such encumberance. John