Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 12:14:11 -0500 (CDT) From: Tony Kimball <alk@pobox.com> To: emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sybase/linux Message-ID: <13835.51525.682306.278290@compound.east> References: <199809251315.JAA18170@smok.apk.net> <Pine.BSF.3.96.980925091035.7324D-100000@cole.salk.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoth Tom Bartol on Fri, 25 September: : : On Fri, 25 Sep 1998, Stuart Krivis wrote: : : > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- : > Hash: RIPEMD160 : > : > : > : > On 24 Sep 98, at 10:53, Marc Slemko wrote: : > : > > The license when you download from Caldera says: : > > : > > LICENSE & LICENSE RESTRICTIONS. You are allowed to install and use the : > > Software for free as long as you operate the Software at all times only : > > with the Linux operation system running natively on your hardware system. : > > You may modify, translate or adapt the Software as long as you do not : > > reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble it (except to the extent the : > > laws in your jurisdiction specifically prohibit these restrictions). : > : > This raises the question: "What is the Linux Operating System?" : > : : It also raises the question: "What does it mean to run native?" : : If running unmodified Linux i386 binaries and libraries on an i386 machine : is not native then I don't know what is. One is permitted to modify, translate or adapt, so that for example running on Alpha hardware is okay. This would clearly not be running natively. I think it is most reasonable to interpret this to mean that the components of a Linux distribution (as ordinarily understood) which are required in order to execute the program must not be run by means of emulation. This excludes FreeBSD as an allowable platform. However, you may recall Richard Stallman's attempt to brand the free world with a GNU trademark. To his mind, Red Hat distributes GNU (Linux), while Walnut Creek distributes GNU (FreeBSD). Frankly, although he has the political aptitude of a hissing cockroach, I agree: A kernel is not an "operation system". It is entirely reasonable to understand "Linux operation system" as being the sequence of mental symbols by which a technically ignorant person has chosen to express the concept of an operating environment which utilizes the GNU toolset and is freely distributed in source form. There are two interesting aspects to such an interpretation: The issue of vulnerability to loss or damage by means of lawsuit eventuated by this interpretation, and the issue of conformance to law. As regards the second, this interpretation is certainly acceptable, as it causes no loss or damange to the license issuer, and intentionally accomodates the intent and purpose of the issuer. As regards the second, it is prima facie absurd to realistically consider that Sybase might initiate a suit against an individual who uses the software in question on FreeBSD rather than a kernel to which the good doctor Torvalds has made more direct and substantial contribution. (He has made *real* contributions to the FreeBSD kernel as to most others in active development in and out of the free world.) That said, I won't use it because it has no source code. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-emulation" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?13835.51525.682306.278290>