Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!news.bc.net!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!gpu4.srv.ualberta.ca!not-for-mail From: jgg@gpu4.srv.ualberta.ca (J Gunthorpe) 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 Followup-To: 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 Date: 29 Jan 1997 20:46:54 GMT Organization: University of Alberta Lines: 124 Message-ID: <5cocvu$122q@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> References: <32DFFEAB.7704@usa.net> <5clvmp$jjs@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> <32EE8E40.167EB0E7@freebsd.org> <5cmcpb$d0a@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> <5cmk98$3tp@solaria.cc.gatech.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: gpu4.srv.ualberta.ca X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0] Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.misc:155019 comp.os.linux.networking:66569 comp.os.linux.setup:94511 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:5791 comp.unix.bsd.misc:2116 comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy:51327 comp.os.os2.advocacy:264265 Byron A Jeff (byron@cc.gatech.edu) wrote: : In article <5cmcpb$d0a@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>, : J Gunthorpe <jgg@gpu3.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote: : >Hm, that seems nasty if you ask me. GPL'd libraries then requried all : >linked code to be GPL'd and free, even though the new code may only use : >a tiny portion of the library. Since you can convert nearly any peice of : >code into a usefull library, the gpl seems kinda hairy. : : With the LGPL if you staticly link the library you must at least release : the object code so that the end user can relink against an updated library. The object code to the modified library? Don't you mean the source code to the modified library? : As for the first point if you integrate GPL code with your code, then : your code has to be GPL'd too. See below... : >For instance, if you consider the kernal, if it did not have a modified : >GPL license LibC would have to be covered under the GPL and no the LGPL. : >This would in turn demand that EVERY other peice of software is licensed : >by the GPL and must have source availible? : : Yup but that isn't the case so I guess the point is moot. I am trying to understand how the GPL effects the licenses of other code, I made this example to use an existing situation (slightly changed) to present my interpretation of what the GPL means. I assume your Yup means I interpreted it correctly? Please note the line 'in turn demand that EVERY other peice of software'. : > : >Can someone please explain what the benifit of have having the GPL cover : >code linked to other code via a library mechanism? : : Um so you don't have to write your own library? The LPGL is specifically : designed to let you use the library without making your code GPL. The only : other option is to use another library. That's a big stretch just to : prevent releasing source code. : : Also I'm not sure where you're going with this. See GPL code whether or not : it is compiled and/or libraried is still GPL code. The LGPL is the only : exception. If you integrate GPL code to your no matter the mechanism : you have to release the source. I am trying to understand the GPL as it applies to linux.. Note your line 'no matter the mechanism'.. : >When does the : >division between 'included source' and 'separate source' occure? : : My perception (which may be a fantasy) is that both won't get you anywhere. Again, note this line above.. : >I assume this is fully described in a special kernel license that is not : >called the GPL? I wonder how vague the terms are as well? : : So vague as to be no-existent. There is no Licensing document in the : Linux kernel other than the GPL. Joy.. I wonder if that can cause legal problems? : >: 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. : > : >Hm, so if you add any code to the kernal it must be GPL'd code!? Yuk. This : >means that if you write something like a sound driver, anything that uses : >your sound driver must be GPL'd to -- correct? : : No on two counts. First you can write a module for the driver which you : don't have to release the source, secondly it doesn't affect the status : of applications run on top the kernel. Bang. Here is the statement I do not understand. 'it doesn't effect the status of applications run on top the kernal' All of your above statments I noted made it clear (to me) that any integration of GPL code with your own results in your code being GPL'd too. NO MATTER HOW. Technically it is easy to argue that when an EXE is loaded it is dynamically linked to the kernal. Or that using <insert favorite interface here> is just a different sort of procedure call, so you are again integrating two types of code. (From a programers standpoint this is true and very hard to argue against.) This is why I was asking about the division between included and separate code, does the GPL make it ABSOLUTELY clear when this occures? Or does it use a general term like 'included within'. I'm no law expert, but it seems to me that if someone wanted to (Linus perhaps?) they could go up to Netscape or any other company that has released linux code and say they have violated the GPL, by the argument that the very fact that the code makes use of the Linux kernal it is in fact integrating with it and MUST be GPL'd as well! (You say the kernal includes the stock GPL, so would a court accept that 'Linus once said...'?) If this is true then Linux is not viable for todays commercial applications which require source hiding. If it is not true, then how can the GPL be applied (as it was discussed above) to a dynamic library, because it is essentially the same? I think this needs some clarification here. : In fact the above senario is the only reason to hide code anyway. With the : GPL you can 'hide' code in plain sight. Others can see it, modify it, : but they can't hide changes from you (in fact are required to send them : back to you). Oh they can repackage and sell your code too. That what : scares folks. There are algorithims and optimizations which if got into the hand of a companies competitors, no matter what the license it, they would simply rewrite based on the GPLd algorithm. : So stop spreading FUD and start working on those commercial products. : If you generate a solid product, folks will buy it whether or not : you send the source or not. I'm sorry if you see this as FUD. I am only trying to understand the license of the software I am running on my computer, and how it will effect any code that I may write. Thanks Jason