Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 08:39:44 -0700 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Craig Harding <crh@outpost.co.nz>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL nonsense: time to stop Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20011219083210.00e73270@localhost> In-Reply-To: <3C20557A.C9AE1720@mindspring.com> References: <20011218121011.E21649@monorchid.lemis.com> <4hzo4hyv3c.o4h@localhost.localdomain> <4.3.2.7.2.20011217221801.02841bc0@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20011218102351.02841f00@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20011218124204.02812700@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20011218180158.00d6fc50@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 01:53 AM 12/19/2001, Terry Lambert wrote: >> They are still integrated even if the system can boot without >> them. See the Microsoft case. > >I'm not aware of any "GPL v. Microsoft" case... No, but there's a DoJ v. Microsoft case. A rather well-known one. In which Microsoft successfully claimed that Internet Explorer (which you or I would say is a separate application) was PART of Windows. >You aren't making sense here, unless "this module" means something >other then EXT2FS or the FPU emulator, since as has been demonstrated, >neither of those is GPL'ed. Not true. According to /usr/src/sys/gnu/COPYRIGHT.INFO: >Most of the files in this directory are written by Godmar Back or modified >by him using the CSRG sources. Those files are covered by the Berkeley-style >copyright. However the following files are covered by GPL. Since the policy >of the FreeBSD project is to keep the files with the more restrictive >copyright in the gnu tree and it is a good idea to keep the filesystem code >all together, the EXT2FS in its entirety resides under the gnu tree. Note >that only the files below are under the GPL. In the eventuality that these >files are redesigned or rewritten, this tree can be moved back into the less >restrictive FreeBSD tree. > > ext2_bitmap.c (in the cvs attic) > ext2_fs.h > ext2_fs_i.h > ext2_fs_sb.h > ext2_linux_balloc.c > ext2_linux_ialloc.c > ext2_super.c (in the cvs attic) > ext2_vfsops.c (has some GPL'ed code from ext2_super.c) > i386-bitops.h Part is GPLed, therefore (due to the viral nature of the GPL) all are GPLed. And inclusion of this code can trigger demands that all of the FreeBSD kernel be GPLed. The FreeBSD Project is skating on ice that is far too thin here due to apathy about licensing. Considering the vehemence of the FSF and the FSF's stated desire to force all software to be licensed under the GPL, it is not responsible or wise for us to do so. --Brett 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?4.3.2.7.2.20011219083210.00e73270>