From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Jun 14 3:19:36 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D37B8152A3 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 03:19:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from des@flood.ping.uio.no) Received: (from des@localhost) by flood.ping.uio.no (8.9.3/8.9.1) id MAA62030; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:19:25 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from des) To: Tani Hosokawa Cc: David Schwartz , Dag-Erling Smorgrav , David Kelly , Morten Seeberg , freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SGI Donated Journalised FS Source to Linux References: From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 14 Jun 1999 12:19:24 +0200 In-Reply-To: Tani Hosokawa's message of "Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:43:40 -0700 (PDT)" Message-ID: Lines: 22 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 19.34 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Tani Hosokawa writes: > What Dag Dag-Erling, if you please. > is thinking of, I assume, is the clause in the GPL that states > that if a GPL'd component is included (bundled) with another product, the > latter product must be GPL'd. It doesn't work in reverse, and I don't see > the situation being the Linux kernel being bundled as part of the XFS > package. No. Read the GPL, and read what RMS writes about it. Plugins and loadable modules are derivative work, and must be under GPL. The specific example RMS used was that of a non-GPL GIMP plugin (which he claims violates the GPL, under which GIMP is ditributed). He also stated that the reverse (a GPL plugin to a commercial product, e.g. Adobe PhotoShop) would violate the GPL. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message