Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 14:31:25 +0100 (MET) From: grog@lemis.de To: dg@root.com Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG (FreeBSD Chat) Subject: Re: What to do about the 2.0 GNU libc? Message-ID: <199702011331.OAA22935@freebie.lemis.de> In-Reply-To: <199701262201.OAA08317@root.com> from David Greenman at "Jan 26, 97 02:01:12 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David Greenman writes: >> 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). I was going to say "In fact, that's not correct. glibc falls under the GLGPL (The GNU Library General Public License)", but I've just checked, and that doesn't seem to be the case. Does anybody know if this is intentional? Note the followup to -chat. Greg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199702011331.OAA22935>