GPL vs BSD Licence

[Thomas Sparrevohn]

On Thursday 28 October 2004 22:08, TM4525 at aol.com wrote:

Could you please move the discussion to FreeBSD-chat - now 

> In a message dated 10/28/04 4:49:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>
> ph.schulz at gmx.de writes:
> >  I don't think that Allot modifies the Linux kernel. I wouldn't expect
> >them to do so and I don't see an obvious reason why they should (*).
> >Obviously some of their custom stuff needs to run inside kernel, but I
> >rather think they enhance the kernel with some loadable modules or
> >whatever (does Linux have KLDs?).
>
> Then you either know nothing about programming or nothing about their
> products. Do you think they do gigabit bandwidth management, with
> features not in the kernel, from user space? Plus, if they were using an
> unmodified kernel, why not provide the source? Put it on the machine.
> Whats the harm?
>
>  > A while back, I fast-read a post of Linus Torvalds to a mailing list
> >
> >saying why he thinks that binary-only enhancements to linux must be GPL
> >licenced (and I believed the statemant was discussed on a FreeBSD-list
> >also). His argument was that by using the kernel headers your work
> >automatically becomes a derived work, thus it needs to be licensed under
> >the GPL. I seem to recall the discussion was about nVidia's closed
>
> Modules use headers and are not "GPLed", so clearly you're just
> plain wrong.
>
> Linus is just a big dope anyway, so who cares what he thinks? He's like
> Kerry. He thinks whatever is convenient for him to think at the time.
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"