From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 29 06:10:08 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85AAE16A4CE for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 06:10:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [65.75.192.90]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20F2B43D1F for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 06:10:08 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Received: from tedwin2k (nat-rtr.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [65.75.197.130]) i9T69tY03847; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 23:09:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" To: "Phil Schulz" , Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 23:09:54 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <41815B2B.7070801@gmx.de> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 cc: TM4525@aol.com Subject: RE: GPL vs BSD Licence X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 06:10:08 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Phil Schulz [mailto:ph.schulz@gmx.de] > Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 1:49 PM > To: chat@freebsd.org > Cc: TM4525@aol.com; tedm@toybox.placo.com > Subject: Re: GPL vs BSD Licence > > 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. It is. It is the stated policy of the FSF that loadable kernel modules are considered part of the GPL work and therefore must be GPL'ed themselves. That is where all this is coming from. It is kind of a personal vendetta/issue with RMS I understand. This position has also created lots of controversy as you might imagine. > 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. They make an exception for libraries with the LGPL license. Certain ones, only, however. All this is discussed on the FSF website, by the way. Ted