lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Apr]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: beos-bootloader? (fwd)
15-Apr-98 10:58 you wrote:
> Hey folks, I have a BeOS Release 3 CD sitting in front of me. So you got
> somebody that has one, what do you need done?
>
Thay hacked up linux bootstrapper, LiLo (to make BeLo) and loadlin (to make
BeOS Launcher). LiLo is under BSD-style license and thay have rights fo
to so. But linux bootstrapper and loadlin is under GPL and thay must publish
changes on CD at least. Here is from Linus (I am think that this is more or
less like feeling of all Linux community):

> >That is up to all the copyright holders. It remains to see what Be's
> >actions are. For certain items of code the authors have already made
> >it clear they will make no exception for Be, even if they have to invent
> >the class action copyright lawsuit.
>
> Somebody from Be contacted me about this, and they seem to be very much
> willing to do the right thing. The person suggested on his own that
> they make the boot sources available along with a way or "relinking"
> them to the BeOS kernel, which should make the GPL happy, in fact (the
> 16-bit boot-code isn't actually "linked" to the kernel, it's more of an
> aggregate, although this is approaching being a gray area).
>
> I further suggested that they (a) give credit where credit is due and
> (b) sign a paper saying that they haven't copied anything else from
> Linux. The (b) thing I wanted just to make sure that they don't get the
> feeling that taking the bootloader "dilutes" the GPL in any way for the
> rest of the kernel.
>
> So from my emails with this one BeOS person, I got the strong impression
> that they never tried to do anything immoral, or that they want to
> flaunt the GPL. I'd like to wait for them to execute on this, but I'd
> also like for people to not consider them too guilty right now. I think
> the discussion has been good so far in that it obviously prompted the
> BeOS people to contact me, but it also appears that they are trying to
> do the right thing (and from the tone of the discussions I had, it
> wasn't that they felt pressured into doing the right thing, but that
> they had done the wrong thing without really thinking about it).
>
This is from Hans Lermen's (loadlin author) letter:
>If the launcher just spawns Loadlin and uses the library
>interface functions that I wrote for this purpose, then it needs only to
>publish the 'hacks' for Loadlin. The interface functions do have a special
>copyright that grants (to evry body, not specially to Be) inclusion
>of the _interface_functions_ (not loadlin itself) into binaryonly
>distributions that want to spawn Loadlin. At the time I wrote the
>interface functions, there was no GLGPL, hence this special copyright.
>
>The reason for that I splitted the copyright was 'pushing Loadlin and
>Linux' such that moving 'from DOS towards Linux' was as easy as possible.
>Looking back I'm still sure, that the decision was right.
>
>Back to the issue: You should check wether Be is distributing the hacked
>Loadlin separated from the launcher (i.e. there must be 2 *.exe). If they
>do not or are not publishing the patch to loadlin, then they violate the
>GPL (as loadlin is GPL). If they do, you can force them only to publish
>the code of the Loadlin patch, but not the code of the launcher.

> P.S. I also personally know the VP of marketing at Be. If there was
> some outcome that the Linux community desired, I could at least call
> him up and explain the situation. It isn't like he owes me any favors,
> he just knows who I am, we used to work together at Sun.
>
The problem is clear: Be used some GPL'ed code without publishing sources.
GPL is *license* and as any other license has requirements. Since question
"Is bootstrapper linked to BeOS kernel or not?" is VERY unclear seems that
reasonable solution could be BINARY kernel image of BeOS plus published
sources of hacked bootstrapper plus tool to make "ready to use" BeOS
image from sources and BINARY kernel image without bootstrapper (this may
require installing Linux and BeOS on the same comp -- it's does not matter).
Thay also must publish hack's to loadlin (but not the rest of BeOS Launcher).
And since it's clear that now BeOS CD violates GPL thay must sign a paper
saying that they haven't copied anything else from Linux (just to make shure
that story is closed). Of course thay could use "anything else from Linux"
if thay publish all changes (as GPL required) and if all other statements of
GPL are not violated even after such paper will be signed :-)




-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:42    [W:0.052 / U:0.868 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site