Date: 17 Dec 2001 19:42:11 -0800 From: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) To: Greg Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IBM's intentions with JFS (was: IBM suing (was: RMS Suing was [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD)) Message-ID: <mp4rmp19f0.rmp@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20011218120345.D21649@monorchid.lemis.com> References: <3C186381.6AB07090@yahoo.com> <3C1875D6.5DE4F996@mindspring.com> <3C186381.6AB07090@yahoo.com> <20011214122837.O3448@monorchid.lemis.com> <3C19807D.C441F084@mindspring.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20011214175450.02da2a90@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20011215232233.00e74cc0@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20011216221810.031b6820@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20011217001345.00e26280@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20011217092958.0299fdf0@localhost> <20011218120345.D21649@monorchid.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Greg Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.ORG> writes: > On Monday, 17 December 2001 at 9:33:29 -0700, Brett Glass wrote: > > At 01:27 AM 12/17/2001, Greg Lehey wrote: > > > >>> Not true. The FreeBSD Project would be obliged to license the entire > >>> kernel -- source and binary -- under the GPL. > >> > >> That is a complete and utter contradiction of what Stallman said. I > >> see that you carefully removed his words: > >> > >>> The kernel code released under the revised BSD license will continue > >>> to be under the revised BSD license; it is only the *combination as > >>> a whole* that will be covered by the GPL--if and when the > >>> GPL-covered code is included in it. > > > > That's right. That means that every FreeBSD CD-ROM must be GPLed. > > So must the kernel as a whole. > > I find it amazing how you can make claims like this in the face of all > evidence, and that you again remove such evidence as doesn't fit into > your claims: > > > If someone links a kernel without that GPL-covered code, the GPL > > won't apply to that kernel. > > You carefully removed that sentence from the paragraph above. > Obviously your intentions are dishonourable, to stir up discontent, > not to come to an equitable solution. Sorry I couldn't trim my quote. Didn't want to risk being considered dishonorable (or maybe that should be "dishonourable" :-). But seriously, it seems obvious from Brett's "That means..." above, that he recognizes the combination of the kernel and module (in source and/or binary form?) on the CD as no different in a copyright law sense than the combination of the two in the linked kernel which Greg and RMS were thinking about. Both are aggregates and it is only RMS's claim that one is "mere aggregation" and one is just "aggregation". In fact, RMS probably has it backwards: There is more creative authorship going on in the selection and organization of sub-works on a CD, than there is in the mechanical process of linking a kernel module to a kernel. If a compilation on a CD meets the mere aggregation escape clause, then linking independent works like a kernel and non-custom-interface module surely ought to make the escape too. If one doesn't, like RMS says, then the other doesn't, like Brett says. Finally, if the whole contents of the CD is under the GPL, then "each and every part" of it is under the GPL and the Brett-clipped RMS claim that a kernel linked without GPL-covered code needn't be GPL'd was non-sense. If the CD is not under the GPL, then RMS's claim was obvious. Why should he have included it? One should be careful before calling someone dishonest, because one might have just failed to follow the argument. (Very easy to do in this stuff.) 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?mp4rmp19f0.rmp>