[linux-elitists] [dave@farber.net: [IP] more on next obvious question]

Jeff Kinz jkinz@kinz.org
Tue Jun 7 11:13:41 PDT 2005

On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 12:24:30PM -0500, Brandon D. Valentine wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 08:07:27AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 09:08:45AM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> > > 2. *If* apple wants to support the OS on third-party machines, they make
> > > interfaces available that enable third-party drivers, such as the
> > > existing Linux drivers, to be ported to their OS. The existing OS is
> > > BSD-based. It would be very feasible to add a binary module loading
> > > interface that would allow existing linux drivers to be executed
> > > **without raising any licensing problems.**
> > 
> > It's illegal to put GPL drivers into a BSD kernel, hence, this isn't an
> > option.
> Boy, this _IS_ the linux-elitists list!
> When you rewrite the copyright law, you might send RMS a note.  You'll
> make his day.

Brandon, I have to echo Greg KH's confusion. What are you saying here?

My (informal) understanding of the GPL and BSD licenses indicate that
they conflict with each other to a degree that requires mutual

Specifically, BSD licenses say "do anything you want, but preserve the
author credits"

GPL says "Same thing as BSD, except you must share all your code changes
for anything you ship to a customer" (rough and incomplete wording)

Because of this, GPL code cannot be included in a BSD licensed work.

Does this match your understanding as well?


More information about the linux-elitists mailing list