> 
> Michael R Zucca wrote:
> > 
> > So what's wrong with GNU Public License? Ok, I know NetBSD has a more open
> > code license than GNU but would it be so terrible to have some GPL'd software
> > in the source tree?
> 
> I'm sure Bill's already replied, but just in case he hasn't, there are a
> lot of things wrong with it, actually.  But, the major one is that GPL'd
> code may not be included in the same binary with non-GPL'd code unless
> you're willing to distribute the non-GPL'd source.  So, although we do in
> fact have GPL'd code in the NetBSD source tree (gcc being one of the more
> important parts), we _cannot_ have GPL'd code in the kernel source.
> Apparently, doing this (i.e. hfsfs) as an LKM is a way around this, since
> the LKM is not compiled into the kernel.
> 
> >From what I've read (and there are enough flame wars over licensing that I
> hope this doesn't start another), the basic problem (from the NetBSD
> perspective), is that GPL'd code requires that all derived works
> distribute source, whereas the BSD license doesn't.

The incompatability is a little different. The legal incompatability
is basically that many source files say you have license to redistribute
under set of terms A. GPL says you have license to distribute this
work ONLY if ALL source is distributed under the GPL. Since the
GPL isn't "set of terms A", it's not legal to distribute the source
covered by terms A under the GPL (since you're changing the license).

Someone specifically asked, and lkm's are ok (you can distribute
GPL'd code in an lkm and link it into a running, non-GPL'd program).

> I think the utilities are truly free (if you can call the GPL free).  I
> think that Bill was using a slightly different route, based off of the
> hfsfs vfs module...

Paul and I (he did as much if not more!) tried the macfs module. But we
got bogged down, and a bit bored (macfs has licensing requirements
which will keep it out of the kernel too, and it can't write). So we
decided to shelve the module, and start w/ Paul Hargrove's hfsfs module
if we started again. The fact it's used in mkLinux and LinuxPPC means
Apple has an interest in it working. We could leverage off of that
assistance.

Take care,

Bill