Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 09:16:31 -0600 From: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com>, reed@reedmedia.net, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL nonsense: time to stop Message-ID: <20011219091631.Q377@prism.flugsvamp.com> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20011218180720.00d6e520@localhost> References: <local.mail.freebsd-chat/Pine.LNX.4.43.0112181134500.21473-100000@pilchuck.reedmedia.net> <local.mail.freebsd-chat/20011218110645.A2061@tisys.org> <200112182010.fBIKA9739621@prism.flugsvamp.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20011218180720.00d6e520@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 12:27:00AM -0700, Brett Glass wrote: > At 01:10 PM 12/18/2001, Jonathan Lemon wrote: > > >In that case, you do a "rm -rf /usr/src/sys/gnu", and that removes > >all the GPL bits from your kernel. > > It removes it from the source. And then, if you try to recompile, > you get errors that say, "there's a piece missing." Which suggests > that it's part of the kernel. But that is only if you try to include those bits. E.g.: kernel + (N)"options XXX" = non-GPL'd kernel. kernel + (N)"options XXX" + "options EXT2FS" = GPL'd kernel. We are in agreement here, right? The key point to note is that *ALL* the GPL bits are optional. Yes it is true that, we don't have a BSD replacement for ext2fs. However, I would lump ext2fs into the same boat as the GPL: undesirable. For things like the loader, ext2fs support has been written from scratch (by yours truly) so there is no GPL code involved. -- Jonathan 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?20011219091631.Q377>