Return to BSD News archive
From: jgg@gpu3.srv.ualberta.ca (J Gunthorpe) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy Subject: Re: Linux vs whatever Followup-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy Date: 29 Jan 1997 02:31:07 GMT Organization: University of Alberta Lines: 73 Message-ID: <5cmcpb$d0a@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> References: <32DFFEAB.7704@usa.net> <5qC7y0gTzDLB091yn@ibm.net> <5ciraf$gs@cynic.portal.ca> <32EE0B70.1657@ml.com> <5claa2$jq1@cynic.portal.ca> <5clvmp$jjs@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> <32EE8E40.167EB0E7@freebsd.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: gpu3.srv.ualberta.ca X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0] Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.mel.aone.net.au!grumpy.fl.net.au!news.webspan.net!news.tacom.army.mil!ulowell.uml.edu!umassd.edu!alpha-nt.newbedford.k12.ma.us!cam-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.bc.net!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!gpu3.srv.ualberta.ca!not-for-mail Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.misc:154956 comp.os.linux.networking:66533 comp.os.linux.setup:94465 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:5786 comp.unix.bsd.misc:2105 comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy:51303 comp.os.os2.advocacy:264187 John S. Dyson (dyson@freebsd.org) wrote: : J Gunthorpe wrote: : > : : > : > Hm, that does sound pretty bad, and does limit the usefullness of the : > GLP'd code. : > : I agree, except... : > : > However I have a question, if you take a GPL'd code base and : > make it into a library (shared or otherwise) and then link to that library : > is it required to distribute the code of the new executable? : > : GPL, you will likely have to redistribute the source. There is a : modified : GPL, called LGPL that would allow you to keep some control over your IP. Hm, that seems nasty if you ask me. GPL'd libraries then requried all linked code to be GPL'd and free, even though the new code may only use a tiny portion of the library. Since you can convert nearly any peice of code into a usefull library, the gpl seems kinda hairy. For instance, if you consider the kernal, if it did not have a modified GPL license LibC would have to be covered under the GPL and no the LGPL. This would in turn demand that EVERY other peice of software is licensed by the GPL and must have source availible? Has anyone carefully looked at the licenses included with the various shared libraries/tasks/packages etc to determine how widespread a cascade effect like this might be? Can someone please explain what the benifit of have having the GPL cover code linked to other code via a library mechanism? I don't see how that can help anyone.. How far does this go? If I make a program that spawns a GPL'd program and uses it's output does this require my program to be GPL'd too (And how is this different from making a library)? When does the division between 'included source' and 'separate source' occure? : > If this is so, then how can anyone make any money in linux? I assume stuff : > like the X-Windows libraries, shared C libraries, Sockets libs etc etc are : > all GPL'd? (In which case wouldn't NetScape, ID and others be violating : > the GPL by releasing ported code that runs on linux without source?) : > : The LIBC in Linux is LGPLed (I think), and the OS allows you to write : any : (reasonable) program that doesn't use any proprietary interfaces and : continue : control of your IP. Linus has made an exception to allow for certain : relief : from GPL on the kernel module interface (the kernel is NOT LGPLed, but : GPLed) : -- but that would only apply to code that he wrote or owns. I assume this is fully described in a special kernel license that is not called the GPL? I wonder how vague the terms are as well? : My position about GPLed kernels is that many times you need to modify : the kernel in order to incorporate the kernel into product. Those : modifications may or may not include significant amounts of research : and development. Many companies (read investors) aren't interested : in being compelled to give away the fruits of that work. Under GPL, : you can be compelled to do so. There are licensing terms under which : there is no such encumberance. Hm, so if you add any code to the kernal it must be GPL'd code!? Yuk. This means that if you write something like a sound driver, anything that uses your sound driver must be GPL'd to -- correct? Which means only by special permission of Linus can any new kernal entity be created which is usably commercialy (ie no source give outs). Tis a strange world we live in. Jason