Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 00:52:46 +0000 () From: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> To: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au (Michael Smith) Cc: nate@sri.MT.net, msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, Hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Unzip for package tools (was re: FBSD 2.1) Message-ID: <199601290052.AAA08654@dyson.iquest.net> In-Reply-To: <199601290548.QAA09561@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> from "Michael Smith" at Jan 29, 96 04:18:02 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Nate Williams stands accused of saying: > > > > Obviously, this breaks down for things development tools (gcc and > > friends) and other parts of the system, but those aren't necessary to > > build a running system for the most part. (Actually, ld.so is both > > GPL'd and necessary which is too bad unless you want to build a static > > only system). > > Not to be rude, but I can't see the "problem scenario" being at all > realistic. We have a vendor who will take FreeBSD, remove the networking > support, remove the C compiler from their distribution, rebuild everything > static, hunt down and dike out everything else even vaguely GPLish, and > not rework their installation tools? > At work, where we might end up deploying FreeBSD based boxen, if it is an application where it is embedded, and source is not easily redistributed, we will remove EVERY LAST BIT OF ENCUMBERED CODE. The company that I work for has deep pockets, and is very sensitive to such issues. If there was NO GPL encumbered code in the system, it would make our life easier, but we have a step to deal with in the development process because of GPL encumberance :-(. John Dyson dyson@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199601290052.AAA08654>