Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 01:18:58 +0000 () From: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> To: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au (Michael Smith) Cc: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, nate@sri.MT.net, Hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Unzip for package tools (was re: FBSD 2.1) Message-ID: <199601290118.BAA08755@dyson.iquest.net> In-Reply-To: <199601290627.QAA09708@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> from "Michael Smith" at Jan 29, 96 04:57:30 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> John S. Dyson stands accused of saying: > > 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. > > I understand this; in your situation would you be shipping the package > tools with the system? If you did, would your customers be unable to > either access the net or obtain the Zip source code from you? And if so, > would you be unwilling to negotiate with the InfoZip people to reach > an intermediate agreement? They seem to be very reasonable. > > I'm not arguing here, just curious to know what direction you're pointing in. > Our customers would be provided with ONLY a execute-only environment -- almost like being rommed. I really don't have many problems with GPLed code in a development environment, but in an execute enviroment in manufactured product -- it is problematical. But if the world never heard of GPL, it would be nicer. :-)... But in reality, there could be a much worse alternative to GPL so the world could be much much worse -- so it isn't really all that bad. John Dyson
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199601290118.BAA08755>