Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 17:00:08 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> Cc: Jeremy Messenger <mezz7@cox.net>, "Pedro F. Giffuni" <giffunip@tutopia.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Alternatives to gcc Message-ID: <20090202010008.GB14332@dragon.NUXI.org> In-Reply-To: <20090201225720.GA16332@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> References: <61484.71762.qm@web32708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <86skniyp60.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20090201060549.GE83330@dragon.NUXI.org> <op.uoomb4u79aq2h7@localhost> <20090201225720.GA16332@lor.one-eyed-alien.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Feb 01, 2009 at 04:57:20PM -0600, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Sun, Feb 01, 2009 at 10:48:42AM -0600, Jeremy Messenger wrote: > > 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? > > Some provisions of CDDL make lawyers uncomfortable, the patent > provisions in particular. In fact, if you can constrain the viralness of GPLv3 within your product, some lawyers are more comfortable with GPLv3 than CDDL. The patent provisions are way too widely scoped in the CDDL - they are not restricted to the technologies the software uses. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090202010008.GB14332>