Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 21:09:06 -0500 From: dmaddox@scsn.net (Donald J. Maddox) To: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>, dmaddox@scsn.net Cc: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The BSD License Message-ID: <19980129210906.02061@scsn.net> In-Reply-To: <199801300127.LAA00560@word.smith.net.au>; from Mike Smith on Fri, Jan 30, 1998 at 11:57:55AM %2B1030 References: <19980129202019.32143@scsn.net> <199801300127.LAA00560@word.smith.net.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jan 30, 1998 at 11:57:55AM +1030, Mike Smith wrote: > > Ok, at this point, I think I have asked the wrong question. It seems > > to me that the important question wrt STAC is 'What are licensing terms > > acceptable to the FreeBSD core team for software included in the base > > distribution?', not 'What is the meaning and intent of the BSD license?'. > > I can summarise this (being reasonably familiar with the attitude > through recent investigations of my own). > > - 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). > > I do not believe that STAC would be willing to release their code under > these terms. > > *However* it is not unlikely that STAC would be willing to license the > code to you under an NDA. It would be trivial to provide a generic > pluggable-compression interface inside the user-PPP program. > > Thus, if you were willing to maintain the code yourself, you might well > be able to provide a freely-redistributable STAC compression module > which would plug into user-PPP. Ok, this sounds like the answer I was looking for... I will wait until after I speak with Ms. Poland and actually have some idea what I'm up against before I carry this any further. Thanks all...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980129210906.02061>