From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Dec 17 13:24:13 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from lists.blarg.net (lists.blarg.net [206.124.128.17]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5595937B41A for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 13:24:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from thig.blarg.net (thig.blarg.net [206.124.128.18]) by lists.blarg.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B50ACBD36; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 13:24:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([206.124.139.115]) by thig.blarg.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA24562; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 13:24:08 -0800 Received: (from jojo@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.3) id fBHLOuA29753; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 13:24:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from swear@blarg.net) To: Jonathan Lemon Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IBM's intentions with JFS (was: IBM suing (was: RMS Suing was [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD)) References: <200112171739.fBHHdJj86694@prism.flugsvamp.com> From: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) Date: 17 Dec 2001 13:24:56 -0800 In-Reply-To: <200112171739.fBHHdJj86694@prism.flugsvamp.com> Message-ID: <293d2935g7.d29@localhost.localdomain> Lines: 41 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > >That's right. That means that every FreeBSD CD-ROM must be GPLed. > >So must the kernel as a whole. > > It seems that what you are saying here is that since the FreeBSD > cd-rom contains some GPL code in source form, instantly, everything > else on the cdrom also falls under the GPL license. Close enough, I suppose. But, if the contamination occurs, it really just means that the FreeBSD distributors are infringing copyrights. It's hard to predict what the impact of that would be, if anything. I'm not sure if I agree, and think it may come down to the fact that the common understanding of the GPL might be as important as the words. Certainly in the case of gcc, binutils, etc., their is probably an implied license to distribute or at least an understanding that it falls into the GPL's "mere aggregation" clause, and so the contamination is not viral. > Sorry, this is wrong, and just ridiculous. The GPL only comes into > play if the resultant product (kernel BINARY) contains GPL code. The > product here is the program, not the cd-rom. AFAIK, FreeBSD does NOT > ship any GENERIC kernel containing GPL'd bits. It might be wrong, but it's not ridiculous. There IS a copyrightable, licensable "work" which is the CD-ROM (or even a collection of FreeBSD OS files on a FTP site). Since that work contains GPL code, one must interpret the GPL to determine whether use of the GPL code is allowed without putting the whole work under the GPL. Note that the GPL broadly defines "Program" as anything and everything the GPL is applied to. As I said above, most people interpret the GPL by drawing a line at staticly-linked dynamically-linked executables and completely ignore non-code material. But some people have trouble finding clear language to risk assuming that this GPL clause is null and void in their case: But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message