From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 28 07:06:41 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55FA837B401 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 07:06:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.tcoip.com.br (erato.tco.net.br [200.220.254.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB06943FAF for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 07:06:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dcs@tcoip.com.br) Received: from tcoip.com.br ([10.0.2.6]) by mail.tcoip.com.br (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4SE6Ol22859; Wed, 28 May 2003 11:06:25 -0300 Message-ID: <3ED4C260.2000503@tcoip.com.br> Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 11:06:24 -0300 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030416 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, pt-br, ja MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Leimbach References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: policy on GPL'd drivers? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 14:06:41 -0000 David Leimbach wrote: > I have the GPLd source to the nforce drivers for Linux > to support the nVidia nforce and nforce2 drivers in the kernel. > > To port these to FreeBSD would be an interesting task [if it hasn't > already been done] and I have been looking for an excuse to get > down and dirty with FBSD. > [Yes... talk is cheap... just do it... Nike-a-go-go etc etc... :)] > > What is the policy on drivers that are clearly going to have to be > GPLd by the viral clause since I am referencing a GPL driver to do the > porting work myself? Are these allowed in the kernel? Well, you can't have a GPL driver in the kernel. But, alas, what "in the kernel" means is a bit fuzzy. Basically, no GPL code will go in GENERIC, because GENERIC is what we distribute, and having any GPL code in it would automatically taint the rest of the kernel. Also, there's some dispute on whether something that is linkable to the kernel, like a kernel module, would taint the kernel too. LGPL is preferred because there's no such doubts in this case. But I think the general consensus is that a kernel module can't taint the kernel. This would cause trouble mostly for installation. A user, of course, is free to compile a kernel with all the GPL code he wants. -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) Gerencia de Operacoes Divisao de Comunicacao de Dados Coordenacao de Seguranca VIVO Centro Oeste Norte Fones: 55-61-313-7654/Cel: 55-61-9618-0904 E-mail: Daniel.Capo@tco.net.br Daniel.Sobral@tcoip.com.br dcs@tcoip.com.br Outros: dcs@newsguy.com dcs@freebsd.org capo@notorious.bsdconspiracy.net The one you want is never the one on sale.