From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Oct 5 09:37:50 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA05565 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 09:37:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from lwaxana.cistron.nl (lwaxana.cistron.nl [195.64.68.26]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA05488 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 09:37:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wouters@cistron.nl) Received: from localhost.localdomain (wouter@cs1p38.dial.cistron.nl [195.64.69.39]) by lwaxana.cistron.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id SAA26518; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 18:37:05 +0200 Message-ID: <3618F60E.4B7A0301@cistron.nl> Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 18:38:38 +0200 From: WHS Organization: robots anonymous X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (X11; I; Linux 2.0.34 i686) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tech@openbsd.org, misc@openbsd.org, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GGI References: <13291.907601899@time.cdrom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > > It's now up to you all: is there any interest in using GGI given the > > current license situation? > > This would probably be a fine time to get into Yet Another License > battle except for the fact that I am personally sick of license > battles right now and restrict myself to caring about stuff which is > actually on the critical path, like important device drivers or the > compiler toolchain, leaving the license issues for less critical items > to be debated by those with the time and inclination to argue about > licensing until old age sets in (and probably well past that point). I didn't want a license debate, more a statement like: 'if libggi = LGPL then GGI won't be standard on BSD and very likely, in my view, won't be used by many people'. Which from the rest of your mail I see is the case. > In the specific case of GGI, I certainly don't care either way. If > there are GPL'd kernel bits, then we just make them available as No, that will be BSD (or X if that's ok). Just the library (which is needed to use the kernel code) is LGPL. > optional add-ons like ext2fs and the other bits in /usr/src/sys/gnu. > If someone wants to do a binary-only kernel release, they leave out > /usr/src/{.,*/}gnu as always and life goes on. Hardly something worth > self-combusting over, and not a feature we've gotten a lot of requests > for in any case, so from the purely "user request drive" standpoint > it's also not anywhere on my short-range map. > > To summarize: Have the authors do as they like with the GGI license. > It's not a gating factor (here) in the acceptance of the software. What I'm also getting at is this: If kernel internals change, then the KGI (kernel part of GGI) may have to be altered and you (or another BSD hacker) won't be inclined to do this for a piece that can only be used with a LGPL lib, right? Regards, Wouter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message