Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 16:34:27 +1030 From: Greg Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, "Gary W. Swearingen" <swear@blarg.net>, hiten@uk.FreeBSD.org, "Brandon D. Valentine" <bandix@looksharp.net>, Hiten Pandya <hitmaster2k@yahoo.com>, chat@FreeBSD.org, phk@FreeBSD.org, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Subject: Re: IBM's intentions with JFS (was: IBM suing (was: RMS Suing was [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD)) Message-ID: <20011217163427.A2885@monorchid.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <20011216113458.R87600@monorchid.lemis.com> <200112170550.fBH5oea01099@aztec.santafe.edu> <4.3.2.7.2.20011216221810.031b6820@localhost> References: <3C1875D6.5DE4F996@mindspring.com> <20011213051012.Y56723-100000@turtle.looksharp.net> <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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sunday, 16 December 2001 at 22:21:50 -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 12:18 AM 12/16/2001, Greg Lehey wrote:
>
>> /usr/src/sys/gnu. It's there now.
>>
>>> From the GPL:
>>
>> If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the
>> Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate
>> works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply
>> to those sections when you distribute them as separate works.
>
> If they're part of the kernel, they're not separate works. RMS would
> have the right to demand, TODAY, that the entire FreeBSD kernel be
> licensed under the GPL. This is the danger of permitting the camel's
> nose into the tent.
Well, why don't we ask him?
On Sunday, 16 December 2001 at 11:34:58 +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
> A question: can we legally use GPLd code in the FreeBSD kernel, and
> how?
>
> More specifically, I'm talking about non-core functionality such as
> device drivers and (in this case) file systems (specifically IBM's
> JFS2, which is released under GPL). I think we can agree that they're
> not core functionality because the kernel works perfectly well without
> them. As such, I believe that paragraph 2 of the GPL doesn't apply to
> the rest of the kernel ("mere aggregation"). There's a lot of FUD in
> the FreeBSD community about this, however. I'd like to hear your
> views.
>
> A couple of things that won't happen:
>
> 1. We won't modify GPL code and then try to stick another license on
> it. Any modifications to the drivers or file systems will come
> under GPL.
>
> 2. We won't put FreeBSD under GPL.
>
> 3. We won't try to find loopholes. Either we do this correctly or
> not at all.
On Sunday, 16 December 2001 at 22:50:40 -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
> When code is linked together, that is not "mere aggregation"; that is
> making one program. If you link some GPL-covered code into the
> kernel, the GPL's conditions will apply to the kernel as a whole.
>
> I don't think that results in any legal difficulty. The FreeBSD
> kernel uses the revised BSD license, right? That is compatible with
> the GPL. So you can link these things together. 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.
I interpret this to mean "after linking". It would appear to be the
kernel binary which falls under the GPL. About the only obligation of
the FreeBSD project would be to make the corresponding source code
available.
> If someone links a kernel without that GPL-covered code, the GPL
> won't apply to that kernel.
>
> The main consequence, legally, of including some GPL-covered code
> would be that you could not *also* link in other code with
> GPL-incompatible licenses.
>
> If you find this outcome acceptable, there's nothing stopping you from
> doing it. The distinction between "core" and "non-core" is not
> relevant to the GPL; whether it matters to you is up to you.
This sounds to me like a technicality. For me, the main thing is that
the FreeBSD code remains under the BSD license, and it seems that
there's no issue there. I'm sure that you, Brett, are in a better
position than I to find any problems with the "solution".
Greg
--
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
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?20011217163427.A2885>