Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 09:18:41 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Alexander Kabaev <kabaev@mail.ru> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: policy on GPL'd drivers? Message-ID: <3ED38FE1.D8379F6C@mindspring.com> References: <B9278BC9-903E-11D7-941E-0003937E39E0@mac.com> <20030527123541.GG5269@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> <20030527084529.7d441299.kabaev@mail.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alexander Kabaev wrote: > Wilko Bulte <wkb@freebie.xs4all.nl> wrote: > > Yes, see for example the GPL_ed floating point emulator. Aside: I thought the license had been changed on this? > I and no doubt many others will insist on keeping GPLed drivers out of > the tree. I have no objections for this drivers to be confined in ports > though. So will anyone with lawyers who wants to distribute a precompiled kernel binary. Since the console will work without the driver statically compiled into the kernel, a kernel module is really the best course of action for something like this, so that a kernel with, for example, licensed proprietary ISDN drivers, or the proprietary licensed OSS sound drivers, can still use the driver without a license conflict. Remember that's it's legal to to distribute seperate binaries, as long as you comply with the GPL for the GPL'ed binary, but it's a violation of clause 6(b) of the GPL to combine them into one binary and distribute them, if you are legally obligated to not give out the source code for the non-GPL'ed portion. And since the only thing that gives you the right to use the code in the first place is the license... -- Terry
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3ED38FE1.D8379F6C>