Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 10:48:42 -0600 From: "Jeremy Messenger" <mezz7@cox.net> To: obrien@freebsd.org Cc: "Pedro F. Giffuni" <giffunip@tutopia.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Alternatives to gcc Message-ID: <op.uoomb4u79aq2h7@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20090201060549.GE83330@dragon.NUXI.org> References: <61484.71762.qm@web32708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <86skniyp60.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20090201060549.GE83330@dragon.NUXI.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 00:05:49 -0600, David O'Brien <obrien@freebsd.org> wrote: > "Pedro F. Giffuni" <giffunip@tutopia.com> writes: >> - Replacing groff with something less restricted that doesn't require >> C++: Heirloom-doctools may be an option. > > You're proposing replacing GPLv2 stuff with CDDL'ed stuff? > > $ cd heirloom-doctools-080407> grep -l -R CDDL * | wc -l > 217 > > The last time I asked $WORK's lawyers, GPLv2 was acceptable to > *carefully* ship with our product. CDDL was forbidden (as is GPLv3). Interesting... I thought, CDDL is more flexible than GPLv2? Or do I misunderstand something with CDDL? Cheers, Mezz -- mezz7@cox.net - mezz@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD GNOME Team http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - gnome@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?op.uoomb4u79aq2h7>