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."
Thread beginning with comment 208101
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Miss-information
by bsd_geek on Thu 1st Feb 2007 19:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Miss-information"
bsd_geek
Member since:
2006-05-04

" you've forgotten to mention Linux and it's viral GPL."

No , the GPL is not viral , it does not spread on its own. Also there is no BSD code inside the GPL that is not accessible or changed to a license that dont permit BSD to use it. I was not clear enough apparently so now you cant twist reality to your lies.


Moulin-goof,

Yes, it is viral and everyone knows it. Many just don't want to admit it. You know, people like you.

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

Don't be such a douche bag either. Just because people use the term 'viral' it doesn't mean that they believe the code will infect other code on it's own. It's a term used loosely. It means the code will 'infect' other code when used.

Anyway, I'm done with that.

I believe that GPL code has been used in the FreeBSD kernel before, but only as a module. I think there is some sort of violation if GPL code is compiled into the kernel. I think this was true for certain audio drivers awhile back ago. It's been awhile so I've forgotten.

Personally, I like OpenBSD's route of making everything BSD licensed. It's kinda crazy, but helpful. Yes, even helpful to those who just want to make a fast buck on someone else's code. That's the freedom of the BSD license. ;)

What I don't get is why do so many people bitch about the BSD license and not the MIT license. They're quite similar. They're pretty much equivalent. It's probably because so man Linux machines run X Windows and they don't want to step on their toes.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Miss-information
by FooBarWidget on Thu 1st Feb 2007 19:33 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

RE[5]: Miss-information
by Manik on Thu 1st Feb 2007 22:37 in reply to "RE[4]: Miss-information"
Manik Member since:
2005-07-06

I fail to see how your post contradict the parent. He says : If you use GPL code in your software, then your software needs to be GPL'd. You answer : Uhm, no. The other code doesn't force me to GPL my own code[...]If I don't want my code to be GPL'ed then I don't use the other code.

And if you "accidentally" use GPL'ed code in your code, and do not GPL it, you'll be sued, and will have either to remove the GPL'ed code (cease and desist), or GPL your code (I have yet to see a developper suing for reuse of his code in a GPL application).

As for the last part of your comment, I thought the goal of free software was precisely to be reused, if necessary, under the conditions mandated by the license. AFAIK, Microsoft doesn't allow any reuse of its code, so it cannot be viral.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Miss-information
by Moulinneuf on Thu 1st Feb 2007 22:21 in reply to "RE[3]: Miss-information"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

"Moulin-goof,"

Its Moulinneuf , its my real name.

"Yes, it is viral and everyone knows it"

No , its not. Care to see me in court with your real name with it ? So that I can make some money of you ? Because the viral effect nonsense was tried and discarded with prejudice in a court of law. Ask your lawyer to search for "Daniel Wallace" he tried a couple of attack on the GPL and got them all trown out of court with prejudice , the viral effect was part of one of them.

"Anyway, I'm done with that."

No , I am sure you will repeat that lie again.

The problem you have is that you don't know what viral is and loosely don't really count in reality or in a court of law.

BTW read my other post I also suggested that X should be made GPL so that more funds and support be given to it.

Don't worry about BSD , I am on the case ;-)

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[5]: Miss-information
by hamster on Thu 1st Feb 2007 22:36 in reply to "RE[4]: Miss-information"
hamster Member since:
2006-10-06

"No , its not. Care to see me in court with your real name with it ? So that I can make some money of you ? Because the viral effect nonsense was tried and discarded with prejudice in a court of law. Ask your lawyer to search for "Daniel Wallace" he tried a couple of attack on the GPL and got them all trown out of court with prejudice , the viral effect was part of one of them. "

You might even wanna take a look at the definition of viral...

"Viral phenomena are objects or patterns able to replicate themselves or convert other objects into copies of themselves when these objects are exposed to them."

What happens when the gpl comes in contact with a compatible licens?

And before you start putting names out there you might wanna take a look at what the court cases were about. None of them were about the viral effect of the gpl but about some weird idea about price fixing.

Funny to see you dig your hole even deeper.

"The problem you have is that you don't know what viral is and loosely don't really count in reality or in a court of law. "

For someone who dont' seem to understand the definition of viral and who make claims about a court case about other things being able to decide that the gpl isnt viral you really shouldn't talk about what other people know and don't know.

"
BTW read my other post I also suggested that X should be made GPL so that more funds and support be given to it. "

What makes you think they would make that change now?

"Don't worry about BSD , I am on the case ;-)"

Yeah i'm sure they need a good laugh.

Reply Parent Score: 3