From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Dec 17 14: 5:51 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from prism.flugsvamp.com (66-188-92-95.mad.wi.charter.com [66.188.92.95]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36EF637B417 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 14:05:40 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jlemon@localhost) by prism.flugsvamp.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id fBHM4BP96187; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 16:04:11 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from jlemon) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 16:04:11 -0600 From: Jonathan Lemon To: "Gary W. Swearingen" Cc: Jonathan Lemon , 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> References: <200112171739.fBHHdJj86694@prism.flugsvamp.com> <293d2935g7.d29@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre2i In-Reply-To: <293d2935g7.d29@localhost.localdomain> Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 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