On Thu, 23 Oct 1997 16:40:28 -0700 (PDT),
"Colin Wood" <cwood@ichips.intel.com> wrote:
> Michael R Zucca wrote:
> > 
> > > get hfs support would be Paul Hargrove's hfsfs module, which unfortunatly
> > > is GPL'd. I've had lunch a few times w/ Paul, and he'd rather not remove
> > > the GPL.
> > 
> > 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

UNDER GPL.  There's a pretty large implication here.

> whereas the BSD license doesn't.

Ken