From owner-amiga-dev@sun-lamp.cs.berkeley.edu Mon Feb 14 18:15:17 1994
	id AA28850; Mon, 14 Feb 94 18:15:15 EST
Subject: Re: ADOSFS and GPL
From: David Jones <dej@eecg.toronto.edu>
To: amiga-dev@sun-lamp.cs.berkeley.edu
Date: 	Mon, 14 Feb 1994 17:04:55 -0500
In-Reply-To: <199402142135.WAA15556@eunet.ch>; from "mw@eunet.ch" at Feb 14, 94 4:35 pm
Message-Id: <94Feb14.170507est.19050@picton.eecg.toronto.edu>
Status: R

>> object files. Both, the kernel and the object files of the filesystem would
>> be distributable seperately. That way, I think, the filesystem code could
                    ~~~~~~~~~~~
>> remain GPLd without making the kernel itself GPL. Well, I'm no laywer...
>
>Although no precedent has been set, the FSF takes a dim view of anyone using
>techniques such as this to "work around" the GPL.  The FSF considers pretty
>well ALL dynamic link libraries to be equivalent to statically linked libs.
>
>This means that using a dynamic loading technique does not exempt you from
>the GPL requirements.  And LKM is, after all, a sort of dynamic loader.

I think you're missing the point that Markus made.  If you write a
driver and distribute it separately from the base NetBSD distribution,
there's no way it could be called "part" of NetBSD.

Otherwise, what would stop me from taking it a step further...
ie: I write an application with totally bogus copyright restrictions.
It happens to run under SunOS.  *Poof*  Suddenly all distributions
of SunOS are bound by my copyright because my program runs under SunOS?
I don't think so.  :)

- Chris Hooper     Computer Sciences Corporation - System Support Engineer at
  hooper@gdls.com  General Dynamics  [Sterling Heights, MI]    (810) 825-5061

------------------------------------------------------------------------------