Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 19:08:07 -0700 (MST) From: Marc Slemko <marcs@znep.com> To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kirk's soft-update integration.. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.980204185815.2304y-100000@alive.znep.com> In-Reply-To: <199802050149.RAA23069@kithrup.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Sean Eric Fagan wrote: > In article <240.886636132.kithrup.freebsd.hackers@gringo.cdrom.com> you write: > >Ummm. I still completely fail to see why OpenBSD was able to > >integrate all the hooks AND make the two "encumbered" (sorry > >to use that word ;) files available on their web site without > >any such hoop-jumping. > > Because, as long as the source is distributed, nothing else need be done. > > Guess what, this is exactly like the GPL! Only not the GPL. > > If you read the fourth clause, it requires, like the GPL, that the entire > program's source be included, although it is much more ambiguous than the GPL, > and that may be Kirk's intent. > > >As amancio says, why can't we just ftp the files from > >someplace? > > You can. Go ahead. No problem. You can even put it on a CD-ROM. No sweat. > > But if someone wants to make a product that does not give source code to the > customer, they need a license from Kirk. > > Of course, if you do include it in the default system, I'll assume that's a > sign that GPL'd code can also be included in the default system. Erm... define "default system"? If you just mean have it available as an option while building a kernel see GPL_MATH_EMULATE. If you mean enabled by default in GENERIC, that is pushing a bit further, but even without doing that it is very useful. As long as no use GPLed code (or code under a licence similar in whatever way) makes the system break when it isn't included, I don't see why anyone should object regardless of what they think of the GPL. I don't see what the big deal about the license is. Anyone who just uses FreeBSD is fine with the licence. Anyone who resells FreeBSD doing systems integration or whatever without modifying anything in that area is fine with the license. Anyone who sells FreeBSD with modifying anything in that area is fine if they make the source freely available. If not, then they have to negotiate a licence. "area" is loosely defined, but I think that the broadest reasonable definition would cover the entire kernel.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.980204185815.2304y-100000>