Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 20th Mar 2006 23:07 UTC, submitted by Tako Lansbergen
BeOS & Derivatives Studio33 has released part II [part I] in its series of articles looking at the current state of Haiku. "In the previous part I talked about the achievements of the Haiku Team since the project was first started, this time I will go deeper into the work that has been done lately and which parts need serious attention in the coming months." Screenshots o'plenty, boys and girls.
Thread beginning with comment 106304
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Re: Kernel, etc
by Vanders on Tue 21st Mar 2006 10:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Re: Kernel, etc"
Vanders
Member since:
2005-07-06

I didn't say it was impossible, just tricky. It's a gray area of the GPL, and if the Syllable kernel was not under the GPL it isn't an area I'd want to deal with myself, personally. There isn't even a clear-cut consensus on which way around linking between the kernel and a driver occurs: does the driver link against the kernel, or does the kernel link against the driver?

Provided you're happy with your answers to those questions then that's fine. Linux drivers are an amazingly useful resource, so it's great that you're making the most of them.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Re: Kernel, etc
by Jack Burton on Tue 21st Mar 2006 10:27 in reply to "RE[5]: Re: Kernel, etc"
Jack Burton Member since:
2005-07-06

"does the driver link against the kernel, or does the kernel link against the driver? "

I'd say the latter, because the kernel can live without the driver but the opposite isn't true.

"Provided you're happy with your answers to those questions then that's fine. Linux drivers are an amazingly useful resource, so it's great that you're making the most of them."

That's true, although I definitely prefer *bsd drivers, for the license and also because linux drivers's code (at least, the ones I looked at) is a bit more messy.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6b]: Re: Kernel, etc
by axeld on Tue 21st Mar 2006 14:21 in reply to "RE[5]: Re: Kernel, etc"
axeld Member since:
2005-07-07

Sorry, this "gray area of the GPL" just doesn't exist for open source kernels with a compatible license. Even though GPL v3 is a lot more specific about this, there is nothing that would prevent anyone from relicensing the Haiku kernel under the GPL.

IOW even if shipping a kernel with GPL drivers makes the kernel GPL (in case of GPL v2, this is a possible understanding), this wouldn't be a problem; ongoing development would still be put under the MIT license, of course.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6b]: Re: Kernel, etc
by Vanders on Tue 21st Mar 2006 14:54 in reply to "RE[6b]: Re: Kernel, etc"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh sure, as a developer it's not much of an issue. A distributor would probably want to know for certain what the licence conditions are though.

I'm not saying that is an issue, just that it is possible and not something I would personally wish to deal with.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6b]: Re: Kernel, etc
by dylansmrjones on Tue 21st Mar 2006 17:55 in reply to "RE[6b]: Re: Kernel, etc"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

That's correct, but it will be a problem for companies wanting to create a proprietary distribution based on Haiku. And since that is one of the main reasons for using the MIT license accepting GPL'ed code is problematic (and yes, there is GPL'ed code in Haiku. It's not a problem unless you want to create a proprietary solution).

I wonder if the submit button will work in aBrowse? The login button didn't work

(Reading this, Vanders? ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1