This is surely the reason why they changed all strings from "LILO" to
"BELO" etc...
> Its possible someone made an innocent mistake in what is and is not 'Lilo'.
> Also if they provide source and notice for the loader since its simply a loader
> for another program not linked with it (well not in I think a meaningful way)
> its probably ok if they distribute the source and GPL credits for the
> bootcode they are using.
Remember that we are not talking about LILO. The code they took is from
linux-2.0.27(?)/arch/i386/compressed
I cannot imagine somebody confusing this with lilo. This is clearly kernel
code. The question is wether (pseudocode) "ld boot-loader.o kernel-image.gz"
is considered "linking". (at least they used the linker to do this).
Again, there is no sign of lilo code in it. it's _kernel_ code.
It might have surely been some dumb attempt at getting beos to boot with
lilo or loadlin, but this is the beos kernel image, and it clearly contains
linux code. Wether or not they give credits (to my knowledge, they didnt
(renaming their bootloader from lilo to belo isn't exactly fine, either)),
is another important question only somebody owning the commercial beos
distribution can answer.
In any case, I doubt they will have a notice saying "The beos kernel image
was linked together with some linux code".
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg@goof.com |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu