From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Mar 26 12:58:34 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id MAA25502 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 26 Mar 1995 12:58:34 -0800 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with SMTP id MAA25495; Sun, 26 Mar 1995 12:58:33 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.cdrom.com: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol To: Steve Passe cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: httpd as part of the system. In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 26 Mar 95 11:47:54 MST." <199503261847.LAA27713@clem.systemsix.com> Date: Sun, 26 Mar 1995 12:58:33 -0800 Message-ID: <25494.796251513@freefall.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > Jordon, did I do something wrong freebsd policy wise? I have several > pending requests for a 1.1.5.1 version of mosaic-2.5, but don't > want to cause trouble... Not at all. I've also read the SWiM manual, and it certainly gives one every reason to expect that this is perfectly reasonable. Not that I haven't also occasionally had my suspicions. For example, one could release a staticly linked copy of MOAT (the TCL Motif shell) and export, for all practicaly purposes, the ENTIRE MOTIF API! Folks could bang out large apps in MOAT without ever having to know or care about the Motif license. This makes me somewhat suspicious about a possible disparity between the letter and the intent of the law! :-) Jordan