Date: 17 Dec 2001 13:24:56 -0800 From: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) To: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IBM's intentions with JFS (was: IBM suing (was: RMS Suing was [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD)) Message-ID: <293d2935g7.d29@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <200112171739.fBHHdJj86694@prism.flugsvamp.com> References: <local.mail.freebsd-chat/4.3.2.7.2.20011217001345.00e26280@localhost> <local.mail.freebsd-chat/20011213051012.Y56723-100000@turtle.looksharp.net> <local.mail.freebsd-chat/3C186381.6AB07090@yahoo.com> <local.mail.freebsd-chat/3C1875D6.5DE4F996@mindspring.com> <local.mail.freebsd-chat/3C186381.6AB07090@yahoo.com> <local.mail.freebsd-chat/20011214122837.O3448@monorchid.lemis.com> <local.mail.freebsd-chat/3C19807D.C441F084@mindspring.com> <local.mail.freebsd-chat/4.3.2.7.2.20011214175450.02da2a90@localhost> <local.mail.freebsd-chat/4.3.2.7.2.20011215232233.00e74cc0@localhost> <local.mail.freebsd-chat/4.3.2.7.2.20011216221810.031b6820@localhost> <local.mail.freebsd-chat/4.3.2.7.2.20011217001345.00e26280@localhost> <local.mail.freebsd-chat/20011217185738.N14500@monorchid.lemis.com> <200112171739.fBHHdJj86694@prism.flugsvamp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >That's right. That means that every FreeBSD CD-ROM must be GPLed.
> >So must the kernel as a whole.
>
> It seems that what you are saying here is that since the FreeBSD
> cd-rom contains some GPL code in source form, instantly, everything
> else on the cdrom also falls under the GPL license.
Close enough, I suppose. But, if the contamination occurs, it really
just means that the FreeBSD distributors are infringing copyrights.
It's hard to predict what the impact of that would be, if anything.
I'm not sure if I agree, and think it may come down to the fact that
the common understanding of the GPL might be as important as the words.
Certainly in the case of gcc, binutils, etc., their is probably an
implied license to distribute or at least an understanding that it
falls into the GPL's "mere aggregation" clause, and so the
contamination is not viral.
> Sorry, this is wrong, and just ridiculous. The GPL only comes into
> play if the resultant product (kernel BINARY) contains GPL code. The
> product here is the program, not the cd-rom. AFAIK, FreeBSD does NOT
> ship any GENERIC kernel containing GPL'd bits.
It might be wrong, but it's not ridiculous. There IS a copyrightable,
licensable "work" which is the CD-ROM (or even a collection of FreeBSD
OS files on a FTP site). Since that work contains GPL code, one must
interpret the GPL to determine whether use of the GPL code is allowed
without putting the whole work under the GPL. Note that the GPL broadly
defines "Program" as anything and everything the GPL is applied to.
As I said above, most people interpret the GPL by drawing a line
at staticly-linked dynamically-linked executables and completely ignore
non-code material. But some people have trouble finding clear language
to risk assuming that this GPL clause is null and void in their case:
But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which
is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must
be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other
licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every
part regardless of who wrote it.
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?293d2935g7.d29>