LCDproc development and user support list

Text archives Help


[Lcdproc] Re: GPL and loadable module


Chronological Thread 
  • From: wwf AT splatwerks.org (William W. Ferrell)
  • Subject: [Lcdproc] Re: GPL and loadable module
  • Date: Fri Dec 7 18:20:02 2001

---
ssrat AT mailbag.com
wrote ---
> On 12/6/01 at 6:12 PM, William W. Ferrell
> <wwf AT splatwerks.org>
> wrote:
>
> > LCDproc can be used for any purpose, commercially or
> > otherwise. If a product is released for public (or
> > private, commercial, or licensed) consumption that is in
> > part or wholly based on LCDproc or any of its code, the
> > source code to that product must be made publically
> > available free of charge, in its entirety.
>
> That's the GPL.
>
> > A client or driver isn't a separate "product", because
> > they won't work with anything besides LCDproc.
>
> Does that mean that syslinux isn't a separate product because it only
> works with DOS disks? Or that LCDproc isn't a separate product
> because it only works with UNIX? A client could work with anything
> that gave it the appropriate interface, and I would classify as a
> separate product. There's many clients available totally separately
> from LCDproc.

Point taken. :)

> However, drivers (currently) are tightly interwoven with the code; I
> don't know if they would qualify for different licenses or not. I
> mean, would it be invalid to release a driver under the BSD License
> when the server uses the GPL?
>
> When loadable drivers come along, I see no problem with such a
> situation.

I guess with loadable drivers it won't be such a big deal, but I do see
your point for drivers in our current model. If someone wanted to make a
binary-only driver release at this point, they'd have to code it, then
compile and release a binary-only LCDd. That would suck.

To answer a related question posed here, in that case, no, we wouldn't
distribute it. At least, I wouldn't want to :) I suppose I could be
out-voted, of course. :)




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.

Top of page