Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 14:12:28 -0500 From: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> To: Quark <unixuser2000-fbsd@yahoo.com> Cc: Matthias Apitz <guru@unixarea.de>, "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: mount_smbfs in base? Message-ID: <CA%2BtpaK31SjXthiQwhh%2B_BafgJVVPr=a8wf8%2BnvH_7FTqFHNhTg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1370025660.3819.YahooMailNeo@web190701.mail.sg3.yahoo.com> References: <1370023798.22796.YahooMailNeo@web190704.mail.sg3.yahoo.com> <20130531183152.GA847@tiny.Sisis.de> <1370025660.3819.YahooMailNeo@web190701.mail.sg3.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Quark <unixuser2000-fbsd@yahoo.com> wrote: > > I saw that, but suspected I must have done something stupid that those binaries got placed there. > >> >>> then what is extra in samba port? >> >> a SMB client and server > > so this SMB client is recentish than what is in base? Yes. > I 'guess' samba was GPL, is it OK to let live GPL s/w in base when such strides are being attempted to oust GCC? mount_smbfs isn't GPL. -- Adam Vande More
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CA%2BtpaK31SjXthiQwhh%2B_BafgJVVPr=a8wf8%2BnvH_7FTqFHNhTg>