El JoPe Magnifico wrote:
> Yeehaw!  Well, that last bit of advice about removing the newer versions
> of the libraries while using the 1.3.2 kernel did the trick.  Chaulk up
> another Quadra 605 as a running system.  Many thanks to Dr. Bill, Colin,
> Allen, and everyone else who put up with my incessant questions. =)

Cool, I'm glad you got it working, and that it didn't require a total
reinstall :-)
 
> Okay, unrelated question: What is the protocol for use of Linux code in
> BSD, and vice versa?  There seems to be some desire on both sides for
> discourse, but I'm not informed well enough on the intricacies of the
> respective camps' licenses to understand what's involved.  If there's a
> convenient URL you can point me toward, that would be great, because I'd
> really rather not start a flame war, as there also seem to be some pretty
> confrontational opinions floating about.

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).  

BSD-style licensed code only requires that you acknowledge that the
product you ship contains code developed by the relevant programmer(s).
Of course, it also contains the standard fitness of use no warranty 
disclaimer.  What this means is that you can take BSD-licensed code, add
your own proprietary code to it or modify the original code in some way,
and then sell the resulting binaries without releasing the source for your
proprietary code.  This makes BSD-licensed code suitable for commercial
use (purely from the license standpoint, that is, it doesn't make any
guarantees about code quality ;-)

The NetBSD project is devoted to creating an operating system that is
suitable for commercial use, and as such, we favor the BSD-style license.
There is a page on licensing on the NetBSD web server which you might want
to read over that covers the NetBSD project's opinions on the matter, I
believe.  Personally, I prefer the far less restrictive BSD-style license
to the GPL.

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 ;-)

I hope this explains it a little.

Later.

-- 
Colin Wood                                 cwood@ichips.intel.com
Component Design Engineer - PMD                 Intel Corporation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I speak only on my own behalf, not for my employer.