Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 11:26:46 +0200 From: Phil Schulz <ph.schulz@gmx.de> To: TM4525@aol.com Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GPL vs BSD Licence Message-ID: <41820CD6.2020905@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <1f7.1bdd3cc.2eb2b9b1@aol.com> References: <1f7.1bdd3cc.2eb2b9b1@aol.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I thought I sent that mail to chat@, I wonder how the reply ended up at
questions@ again. Unfortunately my provider won't let me set a Reply-To:
header.
TM4525@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 10/28/04 4:49:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> ph.schulz@gmx.de writes:
>
> > 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?).
>
> Then you either know nothing about programming or nothing about their
> products. Do you think they do gigabit bandwidth management, with
> features not in the kernel, from user space?
That's not what I meant and not what I wrote.
You can write a loadable kernel module w/o changing the kernel sources,
can't you?
> Plus, if they were using an
> unmodified kernel, why not provide the source? Put it on the machine.
> Whats the harm?
What's the use of it? Would you pay a load of money for a product,
modify it and therefore lose all the support?
> > 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
> Modules use headers and are not "GPLed", so clearly you're just
> plain wrong.
Ok, we agree that modules use headers and that at least some modules
are not GPL licensed. Why am I wrong?
We should also agree that (at least some) kernel headers are GPL'ed.
You can verify this yourself if you have the time and the bandwith. My
point was that some people think that if you use a GPL'ed header file,
your work must be under the GPL as well. I don't have an opinion on that
point b/c I haven't had the need to think about it yet.
I was rather trying to say that not even Linux people agree on how to
interpret the GPL.
>
> Linus is just a big dope anyway, so who cares what he thinks? He's like
> Kerry. He thinks whatever is convenient for him to think at the time.
I don't care a whole lot about the upcoming U.S. election. Plus I
think it is highly inappropriate to state your political opinion in such
a way on this list. It's not what the list is there for.
Kind regards,
Phil.
--
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?41820CD6.2020905>