Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 07:22:03 -0500 From: dmaddox@scsn.net (Donald J. Maddox) To: John Kelly <jak@cetlink.net> Cc: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: STAC vs. the BSD License Message-ID: <19980130072203.20698@scsn.net> In-Reply-To: <34d17a26.10132893@mail.cetlink.net>; from John Kelly on Fri, Jan 30, 1998 at 07:11:02AM %2B0000 References: <19980129190335.64088@scsn.net> <19980130105847.60343@lemis.com> <19980129194229.16307@scsn.net> <34d17a26.10132893@mail.cetlink.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jan 30, 1998 at 07:11:02AM +0000, John Kelly wrote: > I don't think the STAC people will accept that. > > Nevertheless, you should still be able to implement a STAC routine > which would be called by PPP and PPPD. The trick will be modifying > PPP and PPPD to optionally call STAC when it's present on the machine, > without disturbing any users who don't have it on their machine. > > Just because one function or module has a BSD copyright doesn't mean > every module it calls is contaminated with the same. You can have a > different copyright and license on the called STAC code you port. > > The boundary line separating the copyright/license is the call > interface. That's been a generally accepted principle for a long > time. Code like a STAC port which is not BSD copyrighted won't be > included in the base distribution, but that's not your objective > anyway, presumably. Actually, that _was_ my original objective, but the prospects look more and more bleak with each message in this thread :-( In any case, at this point, I will be happy to get STAC into FBSD in any form or fashion that I can.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980130072203.20698>