Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 18:57:38 +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: <20011217185738.N14500@monorchid.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20011217001345.00e26280@localhost> References: <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> <4.3.2.7.2.20011217001345.00e26280@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday, 17 December 2001 at 0:17:42 -0700, Brett Glass wrote: > At 11:04 PM 12/16/2001, Greg Lehey wrote: > >>> 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? > > Go ahead. He'll wring his hands with glee, seeing that carelessness > and apathy have delivered his enemies into his hands. Where did you see that in his reply? >> 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. > > 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. If someone links a kernel > without that GPL-covered code, the GPL won't apply to that kernel. Would you please explain: 1. How you got to your contradictory conclusion above. 2. Why you omitted this statement from the reply. >> 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. > > There is a very serious issue. It contains GPLed code and has been > distributed. This means that if the GPL is legally enforceable, > every version of FreeBSD that has contained that code must be > licensed under the GPL. Brett, you're arguing against facts. How do you want people to take you seriously? 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?20011217185738.N14500>