From owner-freebsd-multimedia Fri Nov 5 8:49:52 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-multimedia@freebsd.org Received: from thelab.hub.org (nat198.58.mpoweredpc.net [142.177.198.58]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C7E21522B for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 08:49:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) Received: from localhost (scrappy@localhost) by thelab.hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA03686; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 12:48:56 -0400 (AST) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) X-Authentication-Warning: thelab.hub.org: scrappy owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 12:48:55 -0400 (AST) From: The Hermit Hacker To: Randall Hopper Cc: Alex , Amancio Hasty , Russell Cattelan , Seigo Tanimura , freebsd-multimedia@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Creative seems to open up SB Live In-Reply-To: <19991104182649.A2726@ipass.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-multimedia@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Randall Hopper wrote: > AFAIK "port" is not an option, "re-engineer" is (from your no-GPL > perspective at least). We want to keep this kosher. Odd question here, but, with the modules system we currently have, *shouldn't* it be relatively easy to create a "port" (ie. in /usr/ports/??) that installs the module, even if it is GPL'd? Why do (if they do?) a new modules seem to imply adding to the base source tree, vs creating some sort of /usr/ports/modules system? Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy Systems Administrator @ hub.org primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-multimedia" in the body of the message