Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 19:02:46 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: dennis@etinc.com (dennis) Cc: terry@lambert.org, bmcgover@cisco.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Porting device drivers... Message-ID: <199703070202.TAA15505@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970306190339.00b4b6b0@etinc.com> from "dennis" at Mar 6, 97 07:03:41 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I was proposing that the original driver that was submitted could be > "licensed" by the author, or ported by the author without any GPL > issue... I think the original poster wanted to port a driver that someone else had written. It's a lot easier to port than it is to get the author to make the magic incantations. 8-(. > Bunch of communists...they'd rather have mediocre "Free" stuff than > "better" commercial stuff. Thats why they're bound to mediocrity..... > They all want our bandwidth manager, but many are using 'BSD to > get it because we cant do it for linux without providing source, which > would be suicide for the product. I think this is probably wrong, unless there is *sgnificant* kernel source changes required, most of which can't be put in an LKM on the Linux box. I kind of doubt that; it'd just be a lot of work for you guys to get around is all, not impossible. Yeah, they shot themselves in the foot by making it harder. 8-(. > >The LKM philosophy allows you to do something unique: comply with the > >terms of the GPL, while not promoting distribution. This is not in > >line with the spirit of the GPL, but the driver author can't sue you > >over the spirit of the thing. If he had a different intent, after > >all, he would have used a different (or at least slight modified) > >license, where the spirit was better reflected in the letter than it > >currently is in the GPL (or LGPL). It's not like there haven't > >been people (like me) screaming about this loophole since day one. > > This is BS if you ask me. An operating system provides services by > definition, and to somehow imply that adding services to an OS by > accessing provided services modifies the OS is bogus. Unfortunately > you'll not find a judge or jury that understands it well enough to > make a realistic decision on it :( The Linux license makes this point explicitly (have you read it since they started doing kernel modules?). I believe they did it for Caldera as the test case for some of Caldera's NetWare value-add that they could have gotten no other way. Stallman said he did not like the interpretation, but admitted that Linus was free to make it. Unlike the LGPL static data issue for LGPL'ed libraries, like the G++ libraries, Linux comes with a document that makes the explicit clarification for this to work. You would still need to work pretty hard to sanitize your interface, but I have to admit the Linux market is (currently, anyway) larger than the BSD market, so it would probably be money well spent. In any case, if the original poster has the same issues that you raise, they should also go through the licensing materials that come with the more recent versions of Linux. If the question is really meritorious, then they might want to talk to a lawyer (like USL did). Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199703070202.TAA15505>