Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:09:22 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: Craig Harding <crh@outpost.co.nz>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL nonsense: time to stop Message-ID: <3C1FA272.D9679E44@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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brett Glass wrote: > >No, it's not. It's not in the boot path, and it's not in the > >required for installation path. > > That's only one very restrictive definition of "in the kernel." > While it is true that the code is not loaded unless needed, this > is true of many integral parts of operating systems. They aren't integral, if they aren't in the boot or installation path, since they are not required to get a minimally functional system. > The GPLed code is compiled every time you compile the kernel and > is dynamically linked to it. This is a problem for the distributors of already binary code that is GPL'ed rather than LGPL'ed. As it is, FreeBSD does not distribute with binary code created this way, since to do so would potentially cause legal problems. It is up to the user's discretion whether or not they choose to create a kerne with static or dynamic GPL'ed modules. > (As you know, the FSF considers dynamic linking to make two pieces > of code a single unit.) By this argument, installation of GPL'ed code, which is linked against system libraries, and uses kernel services on non-GPL'ed OSs is at risk. I don't believe this. > The code is referred to in the kernel's internal tables as a part > that can be loaded at will. Actually, no it is not. It is in an FS directory or index file entry, and an index of this sort is subject to compilation copyright only. > The the kernel is fully aware that it can bring in the code in > response to certain conditions just like any other driver or > module. In short, the GPLed code is integrated. It is part of the > kernel. No, it's not, since it's not present by default, since the distribution of GPL'ed code linked against the kernel wuld potentially make the distribution illegal. The kernel is also "aware" that it can load GPL'ed binaries (e.g. in response to certain conditions in the "exec(2)" system call implementation code), but that doesn't make the kernel GPL'ed. I think the worst you could argue is that a product based on a requirement for the GPL'ed driver/module in order to function would either not be legally redistributable and/or would not be legally licensed. The way around that for something like a set top box, of course, would be to simply license the use of the box, rather than selling it or the code. The GPL is full of loopholes like that. -- Terry 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?3C1FA272.D9679E44>