On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 06:21:21PM +0530, Kamal R Prasad wrote:
> > By the way, if I faintly remember, any software using even parts of GPL
> > code must be wholly GPL'ed itself, no ?
> 
> >If I understand modules/makefile correctly (I may not; GNU make is
> >mostly French to me :-), the guy who wrote it was smart and put the 
> >GPL'd files into thier own kernel module. Once you load the module
> >into the kernel and provide a public interface to it's code, the viral
> >part of the GPL stops, because other code that accesses only the
> >public interface is not considered a "derived work" as a matter of law.
> 
> Can someone explain the finer points of where BSD license wins over GPL 
> esp when modifying the kernel [for some proprietry work -which may or may 
> not reach a customer]?

What do you mean by "wins"? If you mean mean that you want to develop 
proprietry software, it's hard to find a place where the BSD license
doesn't win (except possibly in the advertising clause). 

You may use all the BSD-licensed code you like in proprietry software,
but it is only possible to do the same with the GPL if you go through 
some exotic contortions: the code in question is a good example.

Unless you are more specific, it will be hard for anyone else to talk 
about fine points at all.
-- 
Bruce J.A. Nourish <bjan+public@bjan.net> http://bjan.net