On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 08:46:40PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Adam Haberlach <adam(at)newsnipple(dot)com> writes:
> > RMS already made a big stink about this, claiming that BeOS's use
> > of an emulation layer to link to some GPL'ed network drivers was enough
> > to force the GPL'ing of the kernel.
> Did BeOS make distributions that included the GPL'd code?
Yes. IIRC (this happened about the time I got here more then two years
ago), Be released binary versions of the drivers with the standard
distribution as well as source to them as sample code. RMS's main claim
was that although the GPL'ed source was released as source, it had to
link to the kernel to be useful, and therefore could not be distributed
without source to the kernel.
> Was the GPL'd code essential for useful use of their system?
Adam Haberlach |A cat spends her life conflicted between a
adam(at)newsnipple(dot)com |deep, passionate, and profound desire for
http://www.newsnipple.com |fish and an equally deep, passionate, and
'88 EX500 |profound desire to avoid getting wet.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2000-12-30 02:02:46|
|Subject: Re: pgsql/src (Makefile.global.in) |
|Previous:||From: Michael Alan Dorman||Date: 2000-12-30 01:51:03|
|Subject: Re: GNU readline and BSD license|