Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 16:04:11 -0600 From: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com> To: "Gary W. Swearingen" <swear@blarg.net> Cc: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IBM's intentions with JFS (was: IBM suing (was: RMS Suing was [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD)) Message-ID: <20011217160411.G377@prism.flugsvamp.com> In-Reply-To: <293d2935g7.d29@localhost.localdomain> References: <local.mail.freebsd-chat/3C186381.6AB07090@yahoo.com> <local.mail.freebsd-chat/20011214122837.O3448@monorchid.lemis.com> <local.mail.freebsd-chat/3C19807D.C441F084@mindspring.com> <local.mail.freebsd-chat/4.3.2.7.2.20011214175450.02da2a90@localhost> <local.mail.freebsd-chat/4.3.2.7.2.20011215232233.00e74cc0@localhost> <local.mail.freebsd-chat/4.3.2.7.2.20011216221810.031b6820@localhost> <local.mail.freebsd-chat/4.3.2.7.2.20011217001345.00e26280@localhost> <local.mail.freebsd-chat/20011217185738.N14500@monorchid.lemis.com> <200112171739.fBHHdJj86694@prism.flugsvamp.com> <293d2935g7.d29@localhost.localdomain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 01:24:56PM -0800, Gary W. Swearingen wrote: > > > >That's right. That means that every FreeBSD CD-ROM must be GPLed. > > >So must the kernel as a whole. > > > > It seems that what you are saying here is that since the FreeBSD > > cd-rom contains some GPL code in source form, instantly, everything > > else on the cdrom also falls under the GPL license. > > Close enough, I suppose. But, if the contamination occurs, it really > just means that the FreeBSD distributors are infringing copyrights. > It's hard to predict what the impact of that would be, if anything. > > I'm not sure if I agree, and think it may come down to the fact that > the common understanding of the GPL might be as important as the words. > Certainly in the case of gcc, binutils, etc., their is probably an > implied license to distribute or at least an understanding that it > falls into the GPL's "mere aggregation" clause, and so the > contamination is not viral. > > > Sorry, this is wrong, and just ridiculous. The GPL only comes into > > play if the resultant product (kernel BINARY) contains GPL code. The > > product here is the program, not the cd-rom. AFAIK, FreeBSD does NOT > > ship any GENERIC kernel containing GPL'd bits. > > It might be wrong, but it's not ridiculous. There IS a copyrightable, > licensable "work" which is the CD-ROM (or even a collection of FreeBSD > OS files on a FTP site). Since that work contains GPL code, one must > interpret the GPL to determine whether use of the GPL code is allowed > without putting the whole work under the GPL. Note that the GPL broadly > defines "Program" as anything and everything the GPL is applied to. No, I'm sorry, this is still ridiculous. By this same logic, if I was a hardware vendor and decided to bundle a RedHat 7.2 CD among the estra software packages, you would have me extend the GPL to include everything, including the Microsoft Windows CD. I suppose that you can argue about the interpretation of the word "based" in the license; as opposed to saying "included". I believe the above interpretation is stretching the realm of the absurd. -- Jonathan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011217160411.G377>