From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Aug 13 19:56:23 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from lestat.nas.nasa.gov (lestat.nas.nasa.gov [129.99.33.127]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E064814D0C; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 19:56:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from thorpej@lestat.nas.nasa.gov) Received: from lestat (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lestat.nas.nasa.gov (8.8.8/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA00419; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 19:55:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199908140255.TAA00419@lestat.nas.nasa.gov> To: Kris Kennaway Cc: James Howard , Terry Lambert , Mark Tinguely , Hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BSD XFS Port & BSD VFS Rewrite Reply-To: Jason Thorpe From: Jason Thorpe Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 19:55:13 -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 19:37:42 -0700 (PDT) Kris Kennaway wrote: > > So, if they were to simply put a BSD license on the code, then everyone > > would be happy, and there wouldn't be any of the dual-license confusion. > > Unfortunately, by BSD-licensing the XFS code, SGI would be allowing their > direct economic competitors (Sun, Microsoft, etc) to add the technology to > their products in a closed, binary form, for free. Precisely why asking them to do a dual-license is pointless. Not only would it give direct economic competitors[*] this capability, but it would also confuse everyone else. [*] One might argue that SGI no longer has any direct economic competitors, since their machines are too expensive, too unreliable, and no one in their right mind would buy them since the ship is sinking so fast. -- Jason R. Thorpe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message