Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:27:01 +1030 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Jamie Howard <howardjp@dragon.ham.muohio.edu> Cc: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>, dmaddox@scsn.net, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The BSD License Message-ID: <19980130122701.55526@lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980129205556.8426A-100000@dragon.ham.muohio.edu>; from Jamie Howard on Thu, Jan 29, 1998 at 09:00:13PM -0500 References: <199801300127.LAA00560@word.smith.net.au> <Pine.LNX.3.95.980129205556.8426A-100000@dragon.ham.muohio.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jan 29, 1998 at 09:00:13PM -0500, Jamie Howard wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Mike Smith wrote: > >> - If source code is not available and freely redistributable, it is >> impossible for it to be included in the FreeBSD codebase. (This is >> really a no-brainer). > > Hello, I've been lurking around this mailing list for a spell now and > recently considered this question myself. I am confused by the above > statement. Was Sun Microsystems legally bound to (a) make the source to > SunOS available and (b) make the source code available for free? What > about others like DEC and Ultrix or OSF/1 or NeXT and NeXTStep? You're confusing two things. As I stated earlier, the Berkeley license does *not* oblige you to disclose your source code, nor even the embedded BSD code in your sources. The Berkeley license applies to the embedded code, not to your code in its entirety. On the other hand, Mike and Jorday say that if you want to distribute the software in the FreeBSD code base, you must place your code under the Berkeley license. This isn't quite true, of course, as I pointed out earlier: the source tree includes packages with other licenses, notably GPL. They're neatly segregated in directories where they can't infect BSD code :-) Greg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980130122701.55526>