From owner-freebsd-current Sat Oct 28 14: 6:27 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from winston.osd.bsdi.com (winston.osd.bsdi.com [204.216.27.229]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE57F37B4C5; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 14:06:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from winston.osd.bsdi.com (jkh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by winston.osd.bsdi.com (8.11.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e9SL68462406; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 14:06:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com) To: Terry Lambert Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, jhb@FreeBSD.ORG (John Baldwin), billf@chimesnet.com (Bill Fumerola) Subject: Re: ipfw question. In-Reply-To: Message from Terry Lambert of "Sat, 28 Oct 2000 00:17:56 -0000." <200010280017.RAA03233@usr01.primenet.com> Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 14:06:08 -0700 Message-ID: <62401.972767168@winston.osd.bsdi.com> From: Jordan Hubbard Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > I know someone who is willing to substantially revise the install > process, BUT: That's too much of a BUT. :) > 1) They will want to keep it proprietary for commercial > use for a period of at least a year, and that would Which is why it wouldn't be FreeBSD. FreeBSD is free and that includes sysinstall and the pkg_install tools, a situation that parallels this one since Walnut Creek CDROM essentially paid me to write them. If WC had turned pointy-haired about this and decided not to allow me to release them, however, we'd still be using shell script installers (or an installer from somebody with less pointy-haired bosses) since that would have been completely unacceptable. > 2) They will want to call their stuff FreeBSD, but that .. and which is why they couldn't call their stuff FreeBSD. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I know you said FWIW, but I just wanted to point out that it was actually worth very little. :-) - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message