Subject: Re: softdep
To: Greywolf <>
From: Michael Graff <>
List: current-users
Date: 11/18/1999 18:52:36
Greywolf <> writes:

> 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?

But this _isn't_ the GPV^HL.  It's a totally different and mostly
unrelated issue, since the license in question isn't the GPL.

> # We do that.
> But someone selling the system doesn't have to.  Now, with soft
> updates, they _do_ have to.

If they sell the system and don't include source, they can damned well
compile their own kernel.

For instance, if a router company were to actually select us over
FreeBSD, they can recompile their kernels without soft update.

Or, if cheap bytes wants to sell NetBSD distributions, they can
include source.

It's not really that hard, and the argument that Just In Case someone
wants to sell a NetBSD release without source we should cripple all
users' kernels is pretty backwards.

> # 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.

Under what terms?

 * 4. Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on
 *    how to obtain complete source code for any accompanying software
 *    that uses this software. This source code must either be included
 *    in the distribution or be available for no more than the cost of
 *    distribution plus a nominal fee, and must be freely redistributable
 *    under reasonable conditions. For an executable file, complete
 *    source code means the source code for all modules it contains.
 *    It does not mean source code for modules or files that typically
 *    accompany the operating system on which the executable file runs,
 *    e.g., standard library modules or system header files.

That's from the .h file.  I don't see any mention of include files as
different than "this software."