From: bir7@leland.Stanford.EDU (Ross Biro) Subject: Re: What would people think of binary-only software on Linux? Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 16:46:06 GMT
In article <1mphgeINN9mf@shelley.u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>bir7@leland.Stanford.EDU (Ross Biro) writes:
>> 1) The Linux Kernel is covered by the GPL. That means that
>>anything distributed as part of the kernel, or to be linked into the
>>kernel must include an offer of source and no limit on the
>>redistribution.
>
>Not quite. If I were to make an object file, using tools not covered by
>GPL, and I made that object file compatible with whatever object format
>is needed for the Linux kernel, I don't have to distribute source
>unless I'm actually distributing the kernel. If all I'm doing is selling
>or giving out a floppy with my object files, GPL has nothing to do with
>it.
The GPL has never been tested in a court of law, so legally it
is an unknown. I do know the intent of the GPL is to include object
modules whose primary purpose is to be linked into a GPL'ed package.
Otherwise I could make any GPL software proprietary by adding a .o
file which contained something like
void proprietary
{
printf ("this software is now proprietary.\n");
}
And putting calls to it all throught the code. I could then limit
redistribution of a GPL covered binary, and the GPL would effectively
be useless.
Ross Biro bir7@leland.stanford.edu
Member League for Programming Freedom (LPF)
mail lpf@uunet.uu.net to protect your Freedom