Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 1st Feb 2007 14:41 UTC, submitted by Oliver
FreeBSD "Linux has a large amount of device drivers for hardware not supported on FreeBSD, especially USB devices. Not rarely, such drivers have been written based on information derived by protocol sniffing, reverse engineering and the like. This makes the code highly undocumented, and renders the porting effort extremely error prone. To help with this task, I decided to start working on an emulation layer that would let us recompile the linux source code on FreeBSD, and provide a sufficiently complete emulation of the kernel APIs so that device drivers (or at least certain classes) could be used without modifications to their source code."
Permalink for comment 208108
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Miss-information
by FooBarWidget on Thu 1st Feb 2007 19:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Miss-information"
FooBarWidget
Member since:
2005-11-11

"How's it viral? If you use GPL code in your software, then your software needs to be GPL'd."

Uhm, no. The other code doesn't force me to GPL my own code. I choose to GPL my code. If I don't want my code to be GPL'ed then I don't use the other code. It's as simple as that.

Even if I "accidentally" put GPL'ed code in my own code, then my own code still isn't GPL'ed. It is a license violation and copyright violation however. The owner of the code can sue me, and I'll have to compensate him or remove the GPL'ed code from my codebase, but my own codebase still isn't automatically GPL'ed.

What are you complaining about? If I take source code from Microsoft Office and paste it inside my own software then that would be a copyright violation. Yet nobody's complaining that closed source code is "viral" or "destructive" or whatever.

Edited 2007-02-01 19:39

Reply Parent Score: 4