Re: OpenMotif in Woody
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 12:02:01PM -0800, Philip Brown wrote:
> [ Sam TH writes ]
> > On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 06:40:59PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> > > ...
> > > Why do you think the clause "only free OS's" is not DFSG compliant?
> > > There are many free OS's, not only Debian.
> > It doesn't violate clause 8. It violates clause 1. You can't
> > distribute OpenMotif on, for or with Solaris, say. Clear violation.
> I'd like to point out that various linux kernel drivers also violate clause
> 1 in that sense.
> They say they can only be used on "free OS's".
> eg: the tulip network driver.
> I think this sucks, and if there was any way to move those things out into
> "non-free", without totally breaking things, I'd be for it :-)
Completely different. The tulip driver is GPL code, and the author
makes the point that a driver is _not_ standalone code, and _must_
be linked with something else, i.e., a kernel, and therefore falls
under the linking clause of the GPL.
You are correct, however, that there are drivers in the kernel
that say "Linux-only" or some such. But this is probably lack
of understanding on the authors' part, not realizing that there
are other GPL kernel(s).