Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 11:56:08 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: nate@sri.MT.net (Nate Williams) Cc: jmb@freefall.freebsd.org, jkh@time.cdrom.com, nate@sri.MT.net, phk@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: tcl -- what's going on here. Message-ID: <199606191856.LAA13628@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199606191656.KAA06240@rocky.sri.MT.net> from "Nate Williams" at Jun 19, 96 10:56:31 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> We're trying to *avoid* adding GPL'd components to the tree, and if we > use Gmake we make the tree unusable for anyone trying to use FreeBSD for > 'other' purposes, which is one of the tenets ofthe BSD vs. GPL licensing > scheme. Actually, this is a false-cause argument, since the GCC that is supposed to be "bmake'd" is itself GPL. The argument, however, *does* carry significant weight with regard to non-GPL code that required GNU tools to make it function. I think it is possible to subdivide the policy problem; however, under no circumstances can I see how it would be beneficial to import code in such a way as to prevent local delta's from being applied to a vendor branch. The "uuencoded tarball" method strikes me as singularly unpleasent. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606191856.LAA13628>