Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 11:52:27 +0200 From: Phil Schulz <ph.schulz@gmx.de> To: Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GPL vs BSD Licence Message-ID: <418212DB.1010305@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNCEJBEPAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> References: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNCEJBEPAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Schwartz [mailto:davids@webmaster.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 6:15 PM
> > To: chat@freebsd.org
> > Cc: TM4525@aol.com; tedm@toybox.placo.com
> > Subject: RE: GPL vs BSD Licence
> >
> > > But then, I'm not sure (and I mean it) if there can be any piece of
> > > software which, if designed for e.g. Linux, can be written w/o using any
> > > system headers, libraries or whatsoever.
> >
> > You can do this with only moderate difficulty and moderate
> > inefficiency if you want to. All you have to do is:
> >
> > 1) Define your own kernel interface that your proprietary
> > module will use.
> >
> > 2) Implement this interface in a kernel module that is GPL.
> >
> > 3) Distribute your proprietary module such that it uses only
> > your own interface.
> >
> > This way, your module need only use your own headers, which
> > you distribute under the GPL as well as other licenses.
>
> The GPL and Linux don't care if you link into their system libraries,
> they expect that which is why the system libraries are LGPLd
>
> What they care about is linking into libraries (like readline) which
> they consider "their" work. If you do it, regardless of whether you
> use those library headers or use a translation think like you are
> outlining here, you must GPL your stuff.
>
> The contamination comes from linking in, even dynamically, not from
> just using ascii source files.
>
> Ted
>
So I cannot use GPL'ed (vs LGPL'ed) library for software w/o placing
the result under the GPL?
I think I'm realizing once again that I don't fully get the GNU
interpretation of "free". To me, "free" means more sth like "here, take
it and do what you want w/ it, but don't bother me if you screw up"
which is why I favour BSD-style licensed software.
Kind regards,
Phil.
--
Did you know...
If you play a Windows 2000 CD backwards, you hear satanic messages,
but what's worse is when you play it forward....
...it installs Windows 2000
-- Alfred Perlstein on chat@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?418212DB.1010305>