From owner-freebsd-arch Sun Jul 9 15:13:48 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from jasper.nighttide.net (jasper.nighttide.net [216.227.178.18]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9556D37B9E6; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 15:13:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from darren@nighttide.net) Received: from localhost (darren@localhost) by jasper.nighttide.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA13907; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 18:08:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 18:08:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Darren Henderson To: papowell@astart.com Cc: drosih@rpi.edu, imp@village.org, andrews@technologist.com, arch@FreeBSD.ORG, nik@FreeBSD.ORG, sheldonh@uunet.co.za, will@almanac.yi.org Subject: Re: Bringing LPRng into FreeBSD? - License Issues In-Reply-To: <200007092102.OAA21518@h4.private> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sun, 9 Jul 2000 papowell@astart.com wrote: > > What is wrong with retaining the ability to display copyright > information from the command line options? What undue burden does > it place on commercial users of FreeBSD? And if they modify the Yet another license variation. > code, wouldn't it be good Systems Engineering Practice to have > some way to verify that? They have to retain the copyright info in the source so the information is there. The package is in ports and it doesn't seem anyone is advocating that it be removed. If it is to be in the primary distribution then it should have the same, not the same with a proviso, license, if at all possible. If it can not have the same license then there needs to be some hugely overiding need to bring in into the core. That doesn't seem to be the case. ______________________________________________________________________ Darren Henderson darren@nighttide.net Help fight junk e-mail, visit http://www.cauce.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message