From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Jun 7 18:12: 3 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from serenity.mcc.ac.uk (serenity.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.93]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB97237BF2E for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:11:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jcm@freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97]) by serenity.mcc.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #4) id 12zqrP-0001Ar-00 for chat@freebsd.org; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 02:11:51 +0100 Received: (from jcm@localhost) by dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA70012 for chat@freebsd.org; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 02:11:51 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from jcm) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 02:11:51 +0100 From: j mckitrick To: chat@freebsd.org Subject: kerberos and bsd license Message-ID: <20000608021150.A69953@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org sorry if this has already been covered here, but i haven't been subscribed because of lack of time. but i was curious what everyone's thoughts were, especially., dare i say, brett glass. is this a problem with bsd licensing? can this be corrected? is the gpl better for protecting us from microsoft and other prorietary monopolies? a friend of mine argues againts bsd licensing for this very reason. jm -- ------------------------------------------- Jonathon McKitrick -- jcm@freebsd-uk.eu.org Do not mistake lack of talent for genius ------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message