Michael Lucas wrote:
> Actually, this doesn't cause as many as you might think.
> GPL'd code can swallow BSDL'd code. BSDL'd code cannot swallow GPL'd
> code. You could probably get your code assimilated into the main
> valgrind distro.
No, it can't. You can't change the license on the original
code, or you lose your rights granted under that license.
The only thing that works for "swallowing" is an aggregate
license. In the vgrind case, that is not an option.
> FreeBSD also includes (among others) gdb, which is GPL'd. Since
> valgrind is not necessary to run a minimal FreeBSD install, it's OK.
> (Note that I'm not advocating assimilating it into the main system,
> I'm just saying that the license isn't an impediment. :-)
Distribution of the binary is a problem as long as there
is a license miscibility issue. Distribution of the components
is allowed. As an example, you can't build a FreeBSD with a
statically linked IBM JFS port in it (and therefore you can't
boot from an IBM JFS with a distribution kernel), but you can
distribute an IBM JFS as a binary kernel module with accompanying
source code (all under the GPL).
Doing this really skirts dangerously close to the interface
GPL'ing issue that FSF used to try and beat some crypto into
GPL-land; I would not want to be a test case for this.
This is why FreeBSD lets people use GPL'ed components as an
"after market" item, but does not distribute them: it is in
the ditribution that the clause activates.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message