From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Feb  2 01:00:16 2009
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A60C4106564A;
	Mon,  2 Feb 2009 01:00:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from obrien@NUXI.org)
Received: from dragon.nuxi.org (trang.nuxi.org [74.95.12.85])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C381F8FC19;
	Mon,  2 Feb 2009 01:00:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from obrien@NUXI.org)
Received: from dragon.nuxi.org (obrien@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by dragon.nuxi.org (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n12108NP014539;
	Sun, 1 Feb 2009 17:00:08 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from obrien@dragon.nuxi.org)
Received: (from obrien@localhost)
	by dragon.nuxi.org (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id n121088o014538;
	Sun, 1 Feb 2009 17:00:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from obrien)
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 17:00:08 -0800
From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org>
To: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <20090202010008.GB14332@dragon.NUXI.org>
Mail-Followup-To: obrien@freebsd.org, Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org>,
	Jeremy Messenger <mezz7@cox.net>,
	"Pedro F. Giffuni" <giffunip@tutopia.com>,
	freebsd-current@freebsd.org
References: <61484.71762.qm@web32708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<86skniyp60.fsf@ds4.des.no>
	<20090201060549.GE83330@dragon.NUXI.org>
	<op.uoomb4u79aq2h7@localhost>
	<20090201225720.GA16332@lor.one-eyed-alien.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090201225720.GA16332@lor.one-eyed-alien.net>
X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 8.0-CURRENT
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09)
Cc: Jeremy Messenger <mezz7@cox.net>, "Pedro F. Giffuni" <giffunip@tutopia.com>,
	freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Alternatives to gcc
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: obrien@freebsd.org
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 01:00:16 -0000

On Sun, Feb 01, 2009 at 04:57:20PM -0600, Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 01, 2009 at 10:48:42AM -0600, Jeremy Messenger wrote:
> > On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 00:05:49 -0600, David O'Brien <obrien@freebsd.org>
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> "Pedro F. Giffuni" <giffunip@tutopia.com> writes:
> >>> - Replacing groff with something less restricted that doesn't require
> >>> C++: Heirloom-doctools may be an option.
> >> 
> >> You're proposing replacing GPLv2 stuff with CDDL'ed stuff?
> >> 
> >>     $ cd heirloom-doctools-080407> grep -l -R CDDL * | wc -l
> >>          217
> >> 
> >> The last time I asked $WORK's lawyers, GPLv2 was acceptable to
> >> *carefully* ship with our product.  CDDL was forbidden (as is GPLv3).
> > 
> > Interesting... I thought, CDDL is more flexible than GPLv2? Or do I 
> > misunderstand something with CDDL?
> 
> Some provisions of CDDL make lawyers uncomfortable, the patent
> provisions in particular.

In fact, if you can constrain the viralness of GPLv3 within your product,
some lawyers are more comfortable with GPLv3 than CDDL.

The patent provisions are way too widely scoped in the CDDL - they are
not restricted to the technologies the software uses.

-- 
-- David  (obrien@FreeBSD.org)