Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 22:48:43 +0200 From: Phil Schulz <ph.schulz@gmx.de> To: chat@freebsd.org Cc: tedm@toybox.placo.com Subject: Re: GPL vs BSD Licence Message-ID: <41815B2B.7070801@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <bd.48ff1806.2eafe732@aol.com> References: <bd.48ff1806.2eafe732@aol.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[Moved to chat@ from questions@ since the discussion isn't strictly
about FreeBSD anymore]
TM4525@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 10/26/04 2:32:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> tedm@toybox.placo.com writes:
> Actually a more interesting example is some of the Linksys routers
> do indeed use an embedded Linux along with Zebra as the routing engine.
>
> Ted
> Or Allot communications, who openly advertise the use of linux, but do
> not make source available to an obviously modified kernel.. I believe they
> claim that the GPL is optional.
I don't think that Allot modifies the Linux kernel. I wouldn't expect
them to do so and I don't see an obvious reason why they should (*).
Obviously some of their custom stuff needs to run inside kernel, but I
rather think they enhance the kernel with some loadable modules or
whatever (does Linux have KLDs?).
In a case, it is not really clear if the product needs to be licensed
under the GPL. You could see your product as an application designed for
Linux, so you think it is your choice on how to license your code, but...
A while back, I fast-read a post of Linus Torvalds to a mailing list
saying why he thinks that binary-only enhancements to linux must be GPL
licenced (and I believed the statemant was discussed on a FreeBSD-list
also). His argument was that by using the kernel headers your work
automatically becomes a derived work, thus it needs to be licensed under
the GPL. I seem to recall the discussion was about nVidia's closed
source, binary only drivers but, according to Linus, affects all similar
products. I'm unsure if and how this issue is being dealt with.
But then, I'm not sure (and I mean it) if there can be any piece of
software which, if designed for e.g. Linux, can be written w/o using any
system headers, libraries or whatsoever.
Personally, I like the BSD(-style) license better b/c I don't have to
worry about such things and therefore have more time to concentrate on
others.
Regards,
Phil.
(*) I've only ever worked with the NetEnforcer Products, don't know
Allot's other products.
P.S.: I do not know Linux at all and I don't feel that I have to get my
hands on it in the nearest future. I'm just stating my opinion, how I
see things and what observations I've made.
--
Did you know...
If you play a Windows 2000 CD backwards, you hear satanic messages,
but what's worse is when you play it forward....
...it installs Windows 2000
-- Alfred Perlstein on chat@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41815B2B.7070801>