From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Jan 26 15:02:02 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA00470
          for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 26 Jan 1997 15:02:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alpo.whistle.com (alpo.whistle.com [207.76.204.38])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA00465
          for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 26 Jan 1997 15:01:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from current1.whistle.com (current1.whistle.com [207.76.205.22])
          by alpo.whistle.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP
	  id OAA18010; Sun, 26 Jan 1997 14:57:15 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <32EBE0A4.3F54BC7E@whistle.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 14:54:28 -0800
From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>
Organization: Whistle Communications
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.2-CURRENT i386)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dg@root.com
CC: RHS Linux User <dicen@hooked.net>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: What to do about the 2.0 GNU libc?
References: <199701262201.OAA08317@root.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

David Greenman wrote:
> 
> >I must appologize for my past posts to this mail list. I now see that
> >freebsd is the way it is for a reason. Also the handling of ppp
> >connections in linux and most other OS's really sucks. FreeBSD has the
> >best implimentation I have ever seen.
> >
> >I am curious about the up and comming GNU 2.0 libc. Since the BSD's have
> >their own libc will you be replacing yours with the GNU one? Not that I
> >like GNU to much (it seams to be becomming the Microsoft of the free
> >software world) but it would save a lot of developement time if you
> >didn't have to worry about your own library. Since this the GNU libc
> >will be used by Linux it would be hard to go wrong. FreeBSD would be
> >using the same libc are it's chief competitor. FreeBSD would then only
> >have the userland commands to deal with, since Linux of course has GNU
> >maintaining those. I hate GNU binutils.
> 
>    No, the GNU libc is GPL'd which would cause distribution restrictions
> for everything that is linked with it. Unlike GNU, we actually encourage
> commercial re-use of FreeBSD code (in embedded systems, for example).
> 
Gnu libc is LGPL'd of course, which has much lighter restrictions..
(dont ha ve to do all the source redistribution stuff for linked
binaries etc.) 


> -DG
> 
> David Greenman
> Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project