[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: LGPL vs. BSD
> > If yes, are you happy with it? or do you have plans to rewrite it
> > under BSD license?
> I'm not aware of any pressing needs for rewriting of any of the existing
> pieces, though the GPL "problem" came up the other day when we talked
> about LVM - in theory one could use a (BSD-licensed) driver with the Linux
> LVM software, but it would be hard to package that into a product due to
> the GPL.
But what about the LGPL? LGPL is a special thing because proprietary
software can be linked against a LGPL library and it does not break any
rule doing that.
> > If I want to write some NetBSD specific code [userland, but tied to
> > your OS], do you HEAVILY suggest me to provide it under the 4 clause
> > BSD license?
> That's hard to tell without the details on your software.
I am starting to write a "virtual environment" on top of NetBSD. In
the far away future,
it will be a desktop environment running as a process; so, you can have several
different instances of the "virtual environment" running in the same box.
Anyway, to improve performance and to have access to physical
resources, I will need to
talk with the OS directly, I thought doing that through LKMs [though I
did not work with that at all].
> FWIW, NetBSD will move away from 4 clauses soonish, towards 2-3 clauses (I
> forgot the details). Maybe hat helps a bit.
> The central question if GPL code is "acceptable" is how critical your code
> will be for the average user, and what will break if it can't be shipped.
> E.g. on embedded devices, no C compiler is acceptable. Other thincs like
> the kernel can't be left out, and as such there's a "no GPL in the kernel"
> rule in NetBSD.
So, would be a NetBSD acceptable approach writing all the userland in
the LGPL and
my LKMs in the BSD-license?
> - Hubert
Main Index |
Thread Index |