From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed May 10 11:34:51 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id LAA29771 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 10 May 1995 11:34:51 -0700 Received: from cs.weber.edu (cs.weber.edu [137.190.16.16]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with SMTP id LAA29765 for ; Wed, 10 May 1995 11:34:49 -0700 Received: by cs.weber.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1.1) id AA26182; Wed, 10 May 95 12:27:32 MDT From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) Message-Id: <9505101827.AA26182@cs.weber.edu> Subject: Re: A question of downloading device drivers To: peter@bonkers.taronga.com (Peter da Silva) Date: Wed, 10 May 95 12:27:32 MDT Cc: gibbs@estienne.CS.Berkeley.EDU, rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com, brian@MediaCity.Com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <199505101048.FAA05475@bonkers.taronga.com> from "Peter da Silva" at May 10, 95 05:48:31 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL52] Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > The developer. Note I did *not* say "a bad choice"... I render no > > judgment other than to note that the static inclusion of that code > > in binary form puts kernels distributed with it under obligation > > to the GPL as long as it remains GPL'ed code. For the CDROM > > distribution, this isn't a problem, but FTP code could be. > > Why on earth isn't that a problem for the CDROM distribution? > > This GPL-microcode-in-the-kernel business is *really* scary. No matter how > you distribute it you have to put the kernel under the GPL to do it. 1) It's isn't GPL; read the whole thread before resonding. ;-). 2) GPL is not a problem for a CDROM distribution that includes the source (in compliance with GPL). Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.