From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Jan 29 16:58:33 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA02077
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 16:58:33 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from mail.scsn.net (scsn.net [206.25.246.12])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA01683
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 16:57:05 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from dmaddox@scsn.net)
Received: from rhiannon.scsn.net ([208.133.153.44]) by mail.scsn.net
          (Post.Office MTA v3.1.2 release (PO205-101c)
          ID# 0-41950U6000L1100S0) with ESMTP id AAA213;
          Thu, 29 Jan 1998 19:54:58 -0500
Received: (from root@localhost)
	by rhiannon.scsn.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) id TAA01317;
	Thu, 29 Jan 1998 19:56:24 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from root)
Message-ID: <19980129195623.55979@scsn.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 19:56:23 -0500
From: Charlie Root <root@scsn.net>
To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, dmaddox@scsn.net
Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: The BSD License
Reply-To: dmaddox@scsn.net
Mail-Followup-To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, dmaddox@scsn.net,
	hackers@freebsd.org
References: <19980129190335.64088@scsn.net> <19980130105847.60343@lemis.com> <19980129194229.16307@scsn.net> <19980130111804.13786@lemis.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.89i
In-Reply-To: <19980130111804.13786@lemis.com>; from Greg Lehey on Fri, Jan 30, 1998 at 11:18:04AM +1030
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG
X-To-Unsubscribe: mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org "unsubscribe hackers"

On Fri, Jan 30, 1998 at 11:18:04AM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 1998 at 07:42:29PM -0500, Donald J. Maddox wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the reply, Greg...  This interpretation is pretty close to
> > what I got out of it.  So, I guess this means if I want to be able to
> > include STAC compression into FreeBSD, then _they_ have to be willing
> > to allow STAC to be distributed with no further restrictions than the
> > above...  Is that right?
> 
> If they want to distribute it under a Berkeley license, yes.  Unlike
> the GPL, there's no obligation to distribute *everything* in a product
> under this license, however.  In the terminology of the GPL opponents,
> the Berkeley license doens't infect software it touches.

Ok, now you've confused me :-/  Exactly what restrictions are acceptable
on code distributed with the base system, like ppp?  What are some examples
of what _is not_ acceptable?