Date: 17 Dec 2001 21:07:35 -0800 From: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> Cc: FreeBSD Chat <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: GPL nonsense: time to stop Message-ID: <4hzo4hyv3c.o4h@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20011218121011.E21649@monorchid.lemis.com> References: <20011218121011.E21649@monorchid.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> writes: > I can't be bothered to reply to any more of the GPL thread. It's > clear that we have in the project a vocal minority of rabid anti-GNU > people who ignore the facts, and in some cases twist statements to > suit their own prejudices. I don't believe we have a need for people > like that in the project. I certainly don't intend to feed them. Well, he said "reply", not "read", so I've left the "To:" line alone. I'm sorry to read that nasty bit about "people like that". I came to FreeBSD from 6 years of Linux soley to support non-copyleft free software. It's rather disheartening to find the GNU with it's gnose so far into the tent and with so many people seemingly uncaring and uninformed about having non-copyleft software swept into the dustbin of history as better copyleft software replaces it piece by piece. It's suprised me that it took almost 5 months on the MLs and 6 months before that on the NG for me to see the subject come up in even this half-serious -chat thread. There's obviously some evangelizing to do. But I'll try to keep it lower profile than in the last couple of days. From what I've seen so far, Greg's "people like that" attitude is not common in FreeBSD, so I don't plan to go anywhere soon. > The fact is that Stallman says: > > > If you link some GPL-covered code into the kernel, the GPL's > > conditions will apply to the kernel as a whole. > > But only to that kernel, which is a binary. The only effect the GPL > has on a binary is to require the supplier to also supply the source > code on request. I can't imagine that we'd have problems with that. A problem with the "that" statement? Or a problem with "that" effect? A problem with that statement is that it isn't true; another effect the GPL has on a binary is to require the source to be licensed under the GPL too. One is a mere translation of the other and if one is a GPL-licensed "program", then the other must be too. It's all spelled out there in the GPL. That part is even clear. A problem with the effect is that it might cost us time and money and legal liability to also supply the source code on request if we are distributing an embedded kernel. Another is that we might not like spending a penny to satisfy the bullying tactics of Stallman. The GPL could easily have an exception for other free software without harming anything but Stallman's desire to bully people into doing it his way in his quest to punish closed-source software developers. If the question is why we'd have problems with dual-licensing the source, there isn't much point in discussing it, because the licensing can't be changed unless someone can hunt up nearly all of the owners. > > The main consequence, legally, of including some GPL-covered code > > would be that you could not *also* link in other code with > > GPL-incompatible licenses. > > There's one unclear area here, that some of the files still use the > original BSD license. I need to discuss with rms what effect that > has. What's unclear? You are infringing if you include some GPL-covered code AND link in other code with GPL-incompatible licenses. So you don't that. Gotta close this now. Very thirsty and need to wipe up some drool. -- A rabid anti-GPL person. 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?4hzo4hyv3c.o4h>