Virally licensed code in FreeBSD kernel
perrin at apotheon.com
Sun Apr 15 17:52:07 UTC 2007
On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 03:46:31PM -0500, Erik Osterholm wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 02:36:24PM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
> > We're discussing what constitutes "code not goverened by the terms of
> > this license", so until that's settled you can't really use that phrase
> > as justification for your argument. Note, for instance, that it makes
> > no reference to "code that was not already governed by this license".
> > Thus, we don't know from that statement whether additional code as part
> > of a "Larger Work" is excluded by that statement.
> Except that "code not governed by the terms of this license" seems
> obvious. If code is not released under the CDDL, it is not governed
> by the CDDL. FreeBSD is not released under the CDDL. FreeBSD is not
> governed by the CDDL.
It may seem obvious to you. It may also seem obvious to someone else
who has a stake in believing the opposite -- and your two obvious
perceptions may not agree with one another.
Look at it this way: including GPLed code in a larger codebase, compiled
as a single binary, renders the entire thing "code . . . governed by the
terms of this license", where "this license" in this case would mean the
GPL. The very fact of inclusion of the source code changes the
necessary licensing of the entire codebase. Thus, the question of
whether the larger project is "code (not) goverened by the terms of this
license" must be decided *outside of the statement* "code not governed
by the terms of this license".
> But 3.6 only requires that the "requirements of the License are
> fulfilled for the Covered Software." It doesn't say that the
> requirements of the License must be fulfilled for the Larger Work.
The term "Covered Software" is another one of those statements like
"code not goverened by the terms of this license" which, in and of
itself, does not tell you whether or not the code in question is
govered by the terms of the license. In other words, a statement within
the license telling you what you may or may not do with "Covered
Software" doesn't, in and of itself, tell you whether a given block of
code is considered "Covered Software". It just tells you what you may
or may not do with it *if it is* "Covered Software".
> Covered Software is clearly defined, and the other parts of FreeBSD
> do not fall under this definition.
Please quote for me the relevant definitive passage.
> It could definitely use some clarification just to prevent silly
> arguments like this one, but it seems clear enough to me that FreeBSD
> is still free, and that the ZFS modules and source are still CDDL.
It seems clear enough to me, as well, that FreeBSD is still free -- but
only because ZFS is not compiled into the kernel by default.
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"It's just incredible that a trillion-synapse computer could actually
spend Saturday afternoon watching a football game." - Marvin Minsky
More information about the freebsd-questions