Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 22:36:59 +0100 From: Stanislaw Halik <sthalik@tehran.lain.pl> To: John Birrell <jb@what-creek.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: KDTRACE is gone? Message-ID: <20061123213659.GA8405@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20061122214505.GB48004@what-creek.com> References: <2b22951e0611212109t69b01400q5eb0ba15b028ce68@mail.gmail.com> <20061122051359.GA42639@what-creek.com> <4564B095.3000002@evilphi.com> <20061122214505.GB48004@what-creek.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Nov 22, 2006, John Birrell wrote: >> 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. > FreeBSD's policy is to ship a GENERIC kernel which is entirely BSD > licensed. Kernel modules and other kernel options can include other > licenses, but the options enabled in GENERIC must be BSD licensed. Why isn't importing it as a non-default option acceptable? I believe a lot of users would be happy to include it in their custom kernels.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061123213659.GA8405>