From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1I1nR5-0008Bu-7v for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Jun 2007 14:00:43 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1I1nR4-0008Bi-E4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Jun 2007 14:00:42 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I1nR4-0008Bf-A3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Jun 2007 14:00:42 -0400 Received: from cpe-24-31-250-242.kc.res.rr.com ([24.31.250.242] helo=hachi.dashjr.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1I1nR3-0001OT-QN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Jun 2007 14:00:42 -0400 From: Luke -Jr Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU License and proprietary hardware Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:00:32 -0500 References: <200706221018.01516.luke@dashjr.org> <200706221211.58845.luke@dashjr.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200706221300.32644.luke@dashjr.org> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Friday 22 June 2007 12:37, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > If at the same time you make something original, which is not derived from > the GPLed program, then you are as free as a bird to sh*t on the GPL with > regards to your original work. You can choose whatever license, if any. Not if you want to distribute the GPL'd work, or anything derived from it. > The GPL is only insofar viral as you cannot take something GPLed and just > relicense it at will. Not even when you modify it. Then explain the difference between the LGPL and GPL. A license that preserves itself only is pointless without other terms. > However, writing a virtual device that just happens to be dynamically > linkable to QEmu, but might just as well be linked to VMWare, is fine. > This virtual device is clearly _not_ derived from QEmu. That allows you to distribute the virtual device by itself, not alongside with Qemu. > Besides, QEmu's core is LGPL. Not GPL. Good point, and makes this entire argument mostly irrelevant. > > It is undisputed that it would be in violation if the kernel was > > distributed with the modules. > > Nope. It is not undisputed. It is undisputed by anyone who has ever considered the issue as part of deciding whether or not to do it. > > It is also fairly clear (the opinions of many kernel developers and IP > > lawyers) that proprietary modules for Linux are illegal to distribute. > > Nope. Not at all. http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html > I'd rather have your virtual device open sourced, but if you cannot do > that, I'd rather have it closed-source, than not at all. I would never buy software without source. Hopefully someday I can apply this to hardware as well.