Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 00:53:14 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: Craig Harding <crh@outpost.co.nz>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL nonsense: time to stop Message-ID: <3C20557A.C9AE1720@mindspring.com> References: <20011218121011.E21649@monorchid.lemis.com> <4hzo4hyv3c.o4h@localhost.localdomain> <4.3.2.7.2.20011217221801.02841bc0@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20011218102351.02841f00@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20011218124204.02812700@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20011218180158.00d6fc50@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brett Glass wrote: > They are still integrated even if the system can boot without > them. See the Microsoft case. I'm not aware of any "GPL v. Microsoft" case... > True. But the GENERIC kernel comes with this module dynamically > linked and ready to bring in. And the average user cannot easily > remove it. You aren't making sense here, unless "this module" means something other then EXT2FS or the FPU emulator, since as has been demonstrated, neither of those is GPL'ed. If there is a GPL'ed module distributed as a binary, and it is linked against the kernel already (I suspect it is only linked at load time), then it would be the module and the distribution of which it is a part, which is illegal, not the kernel against which it is linked. To my knowledge, however, there is nothing GPL'ed that is distributed like this. There might be room for a claim that there is an attempt to subvert the GPL by delaying linking until a user action is performed; it's very grey whether or not that would be a legal way of escaping the GPL (and will probably remain so, until and unless it is tested in court). > >By this argument, installation of GPL'ed code, which is linked > >against system libraries, and uses kernel services on non-GPL'ed > >OSs is at risk. I don't believe this. > > It is a risk. Not long ago, a company wanted to use a GPLed CODEC > for audio. So, they took a GPLed CODEC, made it into a library > (a DLL for Windows for which it released source), and then linked > to it completely dynamically at runtime. The FSF immediately > threatened to sue and forced the company -- which was small and > could not fight the FSF with its huge war chest -- to back down. > The incident was documented on Slashdot. I'd like to get a URL for this. There's precedent for code that was developed to an interface exhibited only by the GPL'ed code. Also, GPL'ed code is very different from LGPL'ed code, as there is no "relink clause" in the GPL (as you know), but there is specific exception made for Os services. -- Terry 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?3C20557A.C9AE1720>