Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 21:35:57 +0100 From: Wilko Bulte <wb@freebie.xs4all.nl> To: freebsd@bitfreak.org Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, John Birrell <jb@what-creek.com> Subject: Re: KDTRACE is gone? Message-ID: <20061122203557.GA2052@freebie.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <4564B1E0.8030605@bitfreak.org> References: <2b22951e0611212109t69b01400q5eb0ba15b028ce68@mail.gmail.com> <20061122051359.GA42639@what-creek.com> <4564B1E0.8030605@bitfreak.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 12:24:00PM -0800, freebsd@bitfreak.org wrote.. > John Birrell wrote: > >On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 09:09:21PM -0800, Cai, Quanqing wrote: > >>Today when I tried to compile my customized kernel, I run "config" > >>command and got this: unknown option "KDTRACE". > >> > >>Who can tell me what's going on? > > > >The KDTRACE option can't work the way I intended it to because > >of licensing restrictions. > > Which restrictions do you see preventing the distribution of a > DTRACE-enabled GENERIC kernel binary? I would refer you to sections > 3.1, 3.4 and 3.5 of the license[1], which state: > > - the CDDL is mandatory on the source code distribution; > - the original copyright notice for the original work must be displayed; > - binary distributions of CDDL-licensed software may be relicensed; > > The requirement for the last is that the new license not conflict with > the CDDL. The CDDL doesn't otherwise restrict use, modification or > distribution and includes the ability to sublicense the original code as > well as and derived works. > > Someone please point out the conflict. I don't see one. The project's policy is to ship default kernels only with components that are BSD-licensed. The CDDL is not the BSD license, there are things in there like patent clauses etc. -- Wilko Bulte wilko@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061122203557.GA2052>