[GPL vs *BSD]

> Basically, it comes down to this:  GPL'd source code requires that the
> source code be distributed along with any binaries generated at minimal
> cost (i.e. I think you can charge for the media).  Any code which uses
> already GPL'd code must also be freely redistributed (basically, it also
> has to be under the GPL).  

To clarify: for any binary which uses ANY GPL'd code you must be able to
get ALL the source code and you must distribute it all under the GPL.

As I understand it, the sticky point is that we'd have to change the
licensing terms on source code we got from others when this code explicitly
says you can't change the restrictions.

[snip]

> As far as your question goes, these licensing differences are probably
> most relevant to the kernel itself. The NetBSD kernel is composed of a
> large number of source files, all of which are under either a BSD-style
> license or something reasonable similar.  The Linux kernel is probably all
> GPL'd code (I can't imagine it being anything else, but I've never looked
> at any of it, either).  So, you basically cannot use Linux kernel source
> code in a NetBSD kernel or vice-versa.  For the mac68k ports of Linux and
> NetBSD, this means that each camp must figure out all the hardware for
> themselves, duplicating a lot of effort in some cases.  Of course, some
> sufficiently kind kernel hacker could fully document the hardware outside of
> the source code, but that almost never happens ;-)

One thing we could do is make some of the code available under dual-use
copyrights. They let you distribute it under either the GPL or under a
BSD-ish license. I haven't done this as most everything I do is to
modify M.I. drivers or add hooks for them. As the M.I. drivers aren't
under a dual-use license, there's not much use to dual-using my code.

Take care,

Bill