From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Feb 12 05:23:27 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EEE316A4CE; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 05:23:27 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mvs1.plala.or.jp (c158129.vh.plala.or.jp [210.150.158.129]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4419743D41; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 05:23:25 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from e-kamo@trio.plala.or.jp) Received: from msc1.plala.or.jp ([172.23.8.24]) by mvs1.plala.or.jp with ESMTP id <20050212052319.BZXS8399.mvs1.plala.or.jp@msc1.plala.or.jp>; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 14:23:19 +0900 Received: from [220.33.68.68] by msc1.plala.or.jp with ESMTP id <20050212052319.BFNP20796.msc1.plala.or.jp@[220.33.68.68]>; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 14:23:19 +0900 Message-ID: <420D92CA.5050200@trio.plala.or.jp> Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 14:23:22 +0900 From: Eitarou Kamo User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206) X-Accept-Language: ja, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Schultz , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG References: <0A907D6523E90246822D32FA2344E244015E4B@CAA-UNCLMAIL.caa.army.mil> <20050212005228.GA43996@VARK.MIT.EDU> In-Reply-To: <20050212005228.GA43996@VARK.MIT.EDU> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Star & FreeBSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 05:23:27 -0000 >Actually, I think the answer is YES. You're apparently answering >a different question. See below. > >It is my understanding that virtually any open-source license is >*compatible* with the MIT and 2-clause BSD licenses, since all the >MIT/2-clause BSD licenses require is that you acknowledge and >preserve the license, copyright, and disclaimer. > >However, I believe it is generally not possible to use CDDL code >for integral parts of FreeBSD because, like the LGPL, the CDDL >requires that modifications be made available under the CDDL. >It is probably fine for kernel modules and extensions, but that's >something core@ needs to decide. > > > As the conclusion, which state are available? Pre Post ---------------------------------- BSD license ----> CDDL GPL license ----> CDDL MIT license ----> CDDL CDDL ----> BSD license CDDL ----> GPL license CDDL ----> MIT license To say nothing of it, the post herein and hereto is subject to hereinafter. >Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and make no guarantee about the >accuracy of the contents of this message. The opinions herein do >not reflect those of the FreeBSD Project. Use this information at >your own peril. Beware of dog. Slippery when wet. > > What a cool clause above is! It's just simple though. If possible, I'd like to use it in my this sort of post. It is entered into which type of License, I wonder. Eitarou > >