Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 13:10:23 -0500 (EST) From: Doug Hass <dhass@imagestream.com> To: void <float@firedrake.org> Cc: Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG>, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com>, Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>, Jim Bryant <kc5vdj@yahoo.com>, MurrayTaylor <taylorm@bytecraft.au.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FYI Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.1011017130803.11094B-100000@ims1.imagestream.com> In-Reply-To: <20011017190720.C21886@parhelion.firedrake.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
If you didn't say it, then you weren't the one I was talking about, was I? :-) I got several other private mails saying that BSD licensed code was the one and only way, and 2 or 3 mails (from Ben, among others) saying that BSD-licensed was preferred. Either approach is as flawed as someone who claims GPL only or GPL preferred. The license terms of add-on drivers and products should be set according to the needs of the authoring person or company, in my opinion. Doug On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, void wrote: > On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 12:19:34PM -0500, Doug Hass wrote: > > > > I'm glad someone else is speaking up--all I've heard is Ted's point of > > view (from him, and from others who have said the same thing: FreeBSD only > > accepts BSD licensed code, period.) > > I said to you in private mail that where there's a BSD-licensed solution > and a non-BSD-licensed solution, all else being roughly equal, FreeBSD > tends towards the BSD-licensed solution. Not the same thing at all. > > -- > Ben > > "An art scene of delight > I created this to be ..." -- Sun Ra > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.3.96.1011017130803.11094B-100000>