Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 00:30:23 -0700 (MST) From: Marc Slemko <marcs@znep.com> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Someone needs to re-develop "Softupdates" Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.980309001731.2799o-100000@alive.znep.com> In-Reply-To: <24962.889412593@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 8 Mar 1998, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > I should probably know better than to get involved in a BSD - GPL > > licensing debate but that above statement "Score 1 for the GPL" was just > > too dumb to leave unanswered, I'm sorry. The fact that there's some > > More importantly, it's starting up a whole new thread of irrelevant > licensing chatter in -current and we just got done with lots of > irrelevant chatter in -current which I do NOT want to see again. > > Both John Kelly and Karl have been warned in the strongest possible > terms that another debate of that nature in -current will not be > tolerated and if they want to discuss this then they're more than free > to do so in *** -CHAT ***, where this thread has now been redirected > but doing so inappropriately in -current will get them thrown right > off the mailing lists. Any patience I might have had was well worn > out by that last stupid exchange. I think Karl's point is valid. I don't care what license Kirk wants to give his code out under. Well, I care but it is completely up to him. I am not a GPL fan, but if someone wants to use it cool. I am a BSD-type license fan, if someone wants to use it cool. If someone wants to impose extra restrictions on his code, fine. However, I am confused about what the licence is. I have read the license that was posted to hackers. It says that anything, including commercial use, is fair game as long as you keep source available to some portion of your system, which may possibly extend to the entire kernel at the most. No? I have also read what Kirk has said. As I recall (although I can't find the message right now), he has said that, for example, an ISP wanting to use a kernel with softupdates would need a licence from him. No? I may have missed clarification of exactly how these two fit together. While I have personal preferences, I have no objection to either. But I would like to know what the story is and what the license actually is and have any misunderstandings that I may have corrected. Thanks. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.980309001731.2799o-100000>