Virally licensed code in FreeBSD kernel
erik-freebsd at erikosterholm.org
Mon Apr 16 16:50:24 UTC 2007
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 11:52:04AM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
> 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.
If your goal is to prevent lawsuits, stop now. You've already lost.
You can be sued (in the US, at least) for just about anything or for
If your goal is to win, should someone file a frivolous lawsuit, your
above statement is irrelevant. My beliefs on the subject will not win
it for me.
> 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".
The GPL differs due to the wording. I think someone else already
pointed this out.
> > 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
> > 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.
1.3. "Covered Software" means (a) the Original Software, or
(b) Modifications, or (c) the combination of files containing Original
Software with files containing Modifications, in each case including
The source files for FreeBSD are not Original Software, Modifications,
and therefore cannot be the combination of files containing Original
Software with files containing Modifications (as it is neither).
If you need the definitions of any of the rest of the terms, feel free
to visit http://www.sun.com/cddl/cddl.html
More information about the freebsd-questions