Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 10:32:10 +1030 From: Greg Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, "Gary W. Swearingen" <swear@blarg.net> Cc: hiten@uk.FreeBSD.org, "Brandon D. Valentine" <bandix@looksharp.net>, Hiten Pandya <hitmaster2k@yahoo.com>, chat@FreeBSD.org, phk@FreeBSD.org, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Subject: Re: IBM's intentions with JFS (was: IBM suing (was: RMS Suing was [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD)) Message-ID: <20011215103210.G85108@monorchid.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <g6lmg69r72.mg6@localhost.localdomain> <3C19807D.C441F084@mindspring.com> References: <3C186381.6AB07090@yahoo.com> <3C1875D6.5DE4F996@mindspring.com> <1id71idej9.71i@localhost.localdomain> <3C1875D6.5DE4F996@mindspring.com> <20011213051012.Y56723-100000@turtle.looksharp.net> <3C186381.6AB07090@yahoo.com> <3C1875D6.5DE4F996@mindspring.com> <3C186381.6AB07090@yahoo.com> <20011214122837.O3448@monorchid.lemis.com> <3C19807D.C441F084@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday, 13 December 2001 at 20:30:53 -0800, Terry Lambert wrote: > Greg Lehey wrote: >> 4. It is possible to port JFS2 to FreeBSD without violating any >> license, either via loophole or otherwise. >> >> In this connection, I would like to point out an issue with the >> LGPL which I personally think is sailing close to the wind: I >> can't see any real license distinction between linking GPL'd code >> into the kernel and loading the module either during the boot or >> afterwards. In the first case, the code is statically linked, in >> the latter it's dynamically linked. In each case, the result is >> the same. That's not important, though, because RMS does think >> there's a difference (or he's prepared to pretend there's one, and >> he's prepared to sanction use in this form). > > My understanding is that the JFS code is GPL'ed, not LGPL'ed. Correct. But there's this funny agreement that loading modules falls under the LGPL, not the GPL. I'll leave it to Linux people to explain; it's used to allow loading proprietary modules into the Linux kernel. The implication appears to be that, since it's not linked with the kernel, it's not a derivative work. I think it's a workaround for an overly restrictive license. On Thursday, 13 December 2001 at 23:49:37 -0800, Gary W. Swearingen wrote: > Greg Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org> writes: >> The loader might have to be GPL'd. > > If the loader, then the kernel too. No, of course not. That would imply that anything you run under the kernel also has to be GPLd. The loader and kernel are two very different beasts. You can load FreeBSD with the Linux loader. Does that make FreeBSD GPLd? Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011215103210.G85108>