On 18 Nov 1999, Michael Graff wrote:

# Laine Stump <lainestump@rcn.com> writes:
#
# > As I understand it, the reason that GPL'ed code has been kept out of the
# > kernel (and GPL'ed userland is kept in a separate tree in the source) is to
# > make basing products on NetBSD simpler, and it can be one of the deciding
# > factors when choosing the OS. If there is a single GPL'ed file in the base
# > kernel, then doesn't the entire kernel effectively become GPL'ed? (ie,
# > doesn't that mean that any changes you make to existing files in the
# > kernel, as well as new files you add, must be made publicly available?) Or
# > is my interpretation more strict that reality?
# 
# Putting it in "gnu" is really wrong, since it isn't GPL'd.  It has a
# modified copyright that (according to my reading) simply requires that
# if you link with the code, you MUST release all sources to build the
# entire executable.

That's actually nastier than the GPL, which (I think) stipulates that
you only need to release the GPL'd bits, not everything it touches.

...or, hmm, this is the whole flap over the GPV^HL, isn't it?

# We do that.

But someone selling the system doesn't have to.  Now, with soft
updates, they _do_ have to.

# Now, why sys/ufs/ffs/softdep.h is exempt from this curious.  It also
# has the same license as the file placed in gnu/sys/ufs/ffs/, after
# all.  Doesn't using that header file already taint our kernels?

I thought #includes were exempt.

# 
# --Michael
# 


				--*greywolf;
--
NetBSD: the cathedral versus the bizarre.