Date: 05 Oct 2002 17:07:43 -0700 From: swear@attbi.com (Gary W. Swearingen) To: Oliver Fromme <olli@secnetix.de> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: grub boot loader or freebsd boot loader Message-ID: <zksmzk8m5s.mzk@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <200210050706.g9576Uol091583@lurza.secnetix.de> References: <200210050706.g9576Uol091583@lurza.secnetix.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Oliver Fromme <olli@secnetix.de> writes: > Why would you want to install a bootmanager on a dangerously- > dedicated disk? Apart from that, dangerously-dedicated has > been deprecated, AFAIK. The second sentence is not relevant as DD is still supported, but I shouldn't have added my parenthetical mention of DD. If you're using GRUB or GAG to boot, then you'll need a partition table, so you won't have a DD disk, by definition. (Make it a one-slice install, then.) > The kernel can certainly not be considered a derivative of > any bootloader; they don't have anything in common, neither > do they share any code. Remember that you can boot FreeBSD > from the NT boot loader, for example, which isn't even open > source and certainly has a more restrictive license than > GRUB. (Microsoft certainly didn't have supporting Linux or > BSD in mind when they created their boot loader, while > FreeBSD is even mentioned in the GRUB documentation, IIRC). Nobody said the kernel would be considered a derivative of any bootloader, but a CD which contains both is a derivative of both. The question is under what conditions the GPL infects the other parts of that derivative CD (or .tgz, etc.), making the publishing of it illegal. (The real question is how confident we are about how certain people might answer the previous question.) There is no question that the loader+kernel forms derivative work; the problem is that people don't/ can't understand what the GPL has to say about escape clauses for particular derivatives works, especially when they use linking, and especially because it makes some kind of sense to find that the loader and kernel are not "independent" since the GPL uses the word loosely. And remember that you may boot FreeBSD from the NT boot loader, but you'd better not publish a CD containing both. (Nobody says there's a legal problem with using a GPL'd loader locally, but making it part of the core of the distributed OS is too risky.) > I'd be much more concerned about other GPL'ed parts of the > base system. Why is that not "mere aggregation", and allowed by the GPL? (And if you are concerned about that, you shouldn't find it hard to believe that others will be concerned about the loader, even if in error.) (Seeing your TLD, I wonder how software license issues are complicated by the fact that many of the owners of open source software offer their license under non-USA law. And whether the local laws of the licensee AND licensor are involved. Arggh...) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?zksmzk8m5s.mzk>