From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Jan 29 18:10:14 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA14592
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 18:10:14 -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 SAA14538
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 18:09:54 -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 AAA153;
          Thu, 29 Jan 1998 21:07:42 -0500
Received: (from root@localhost)
	by rhiannon.scsn.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) id VAA01566;
	Thu, 29 Jan 1998 21:09:07 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from root)
Message-ID: <19980129210906.02061@scsn.net>
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
Reply-To: dmaddox@scsn.net
Mail-Followup-To: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>, dmaddox@scsn.net,
	Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
References: <19980129202019.32143@scsn.net> <199801300127.LAA00560@word.smith.net.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.89i
In-Reply-To: <199801300127.LAA00560@word.smith.net.au>; from Mike Smith on Fri, Jan 30, 1998 at 11:57:55AM +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 11:57:55AM +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...