From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 27 12:15:09 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81AA416A407 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:15:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (lurza.secnetix.de [83.120.8.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEEDC43F08 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:09:17 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (uzyroz@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id kARCA4Uq029324; Mon, 27 Nov 2006 13:10:10 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from oliver.fromme@secnetix.de) Received: (from olli@localhost) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.4/8.13.1/Submit) id kARCA4HN029323; Mon, 27 Nov 2006 13:10:04 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from olli) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 13:10:04 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <200611271210.kARCA4HN029323@lurza.secnetix.de> From: Oliver Fromme To: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG, mchauber@gmx.net In-Reply-To: <200611250942.38410.mchauber@gmx.net> X-Newsgroups: list.freebsd-advocacy User-Agent: tin/1.8.2-20060425 ("Shillay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-STABLE (i386)) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.1.2 (lurza.secnetix.de [127.0.0.1]); Mon, 27 Nov 2006 13:10:10 +0100 (CET) Cc: Subject: Re: BSD folks position on GPL, Novell, IBM, SCO, and MS... X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG, mchauber@gmx.net List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:15:09 -0000 Mike Hauber wrote: > [...] > PS...  One more question...  Being that Linux emulation is available > as a port for the BSDs, I would assume (but haven't taken the time > to research) that GPLd code is used.  If there comes to be issues > with Linux, what would that mean for BSDs compatibility in regards > to emulation? FreeBSD's "Linuxulator" consists of two parts: The kernel ABI which implements the Linux syscalls (usually loaded as a kernel module), and the userland part (Linux libs, some binaries etc.) that's located in/compat/linux. [*] The former has been implemented by FreeBSD programmers and therefore is under BSD license, not GPL. The latter comes from a stock Fedora Core 4 distribution, most of which is under GPL license. Personally I don't believe that the SCO issue will lead to any problems with generic Linux code. But _if_ there will be such problems, then it might affect the userland part in /compat/linux. It will _not_ affect the Linux ABI in the kernel. In the worst case you won't be able to run dynamically linked Linux programs anymore that depend on Linux libraries for which you don't have a license. You will still be able to run statically linked Linux binaries (provided you have the licenses to run them if required, of course). Best regards Oliver PS: [*] There's also linprocfs, which is a synthetic file system implementing PROCFS for Linux compatibility. It's usually mounted on /compat/linux/proc if required (not all Linux programs require it). As far as I know, it is also a re-implementation and thus under BSD license, so there's no problem. -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing Dienstleistungen mit Schwerpunkt FreeBSD: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way. "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead." -- RFC 1925