Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 17:08:01 EDT From: TM4525@aol.com To: ph.schulz@gmx.de Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GPL vs BSD Licence Message-ID: <1f7.1bdd3cc.2eb2b9b1@aol.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In a message dated 10/28/04 4:49:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ph.schulz@gmx.de writes: > I don't think that Allot modifies the Linux kernel. I wouldn't expect >them to do so and I don't see an obvious reason why they should (*). >Obviously some of their custom stuff needs to run inside kernel, but I >rather think they enhance the kernel with some loadable modules or >whatever (does Linux have KLDs?). Then you either know nothing about programming or nothing about their products. Do you think they do gigabit bandwidth management, with features not in the kernel, from user space? Plus, if they were using an unmodified kernel, why not provide the source? Put it on the machine. Whats the harm? > A while back, I fast-read a post of Linus Torvalds to a mailing list >saying why he thinks that binary-only enhancements to linux must be GPL >licenced (and I believed the statemant was discussed on a FreeBSD-list >also). His argument was that by using the kernel headers your work >automatically becomes a derived work, thus it needs to be licensed under >the GPL. I seem to recall the discussion was about nVidia's closed Modules use headers and are not "GPLed", so clearly you're just plain wrong. Linus is just a big dope anyway, so who cares what he thinks? He's like Kerry. He thinks whatever is convenient for him to think at the time.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1f7.1bdd3cc.2eb2b9b1>