From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Jan 30 04:22:41 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA18896 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 04:22:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from mail.scsn.net (scsn.net [206.25.246.12]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA18887 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 04:22:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dmaddox@scsn.net) Received: from rhiannon.scsn.net ([208.133.153.63]) by mail.scsn.net (Post.Office MTA v3.1.2 release (PO205-101c) ID# 0-41950U6000L1100S0) with ESMTP id AAA120; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 07:20:44 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by rhiannon.scsn.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) id HAA00701; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 07:22:03 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from root) Message-ID: <19980130072203.20698@scsn.net> Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 07:22:03 -0500 From: dmaddox@scsn.net (Donald J. Maddox) To: John Kelly Cc: Greg Lehey , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: STAC vs. the BSD License Reply-To: dmaddox@scsn.net Mail-Followup-To: John Kelly , Greg Lehey , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG References: <19980129190335.64088@scsn.net> <19980130105847.60343@lemis.com> <19980129194229.16307@scsn.net> <34d17a26.10132893@mail.cetlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.89i In-Reply-To: <34d17a26.10132893@mail.cetlink.net>; from John Kelly on Fri, Jan 30, 1998 at 07:11:02AM +0000 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG X-To-Unsubscribe: mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org "unsubscribe hackers" 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.