Re: OpenMotif in Woody
[ David Schleef writes ]
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 12:02:01PM -0800, Philip Brown wrote:
> > ...
> > 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.
Its not "completely different". Either something is truely "free", or it
isn't.
In this case, it isn't truely free.
Yes, I am saying that "it's GPLd" does not automatically everything
something DFSG-free (in spirit, at the very least), because of exactly this
reason.
Saying those drivers are cleanly DFSG-free just because they are "a part of
something else", is like saying .
"All of my program is 'FREE'! Except this source file, which can only be
used in conjunction with my program, or other programs that I personally
like".
LGPL seems to be 100% DFSG-free. Modern GPL is not, in the case of drivers.
Reply to: