Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 21:37:38 -0600 (MDT) From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> To: Gordon Tetlow <gordont@bluemtn.net> Cc: "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy@veldy.net>, <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: IPFilter licence update Message-ID: <15134.63234.55520.302502@nomad.yogotech.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.33.0106061755130.94127-100000@sdmail0.sd.bmarts.com> References: <003f01c0eeeb$4d03bdf0$0101a8c0@cascade> <Pine.BSF.4.33.0106061755130.94127-100000@sdmail0.sd.bmarts.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I agree, it is his perogative. I am glad he wrote it. It is excellent > > software. However, he is making a choice and other people don't have to > > like it, based on sound OpenSource criteria (which he never claimed IPFilter > > was). He can not expect anybody else to feel that it is OK to have non-open > > software incorporated into the base system of an open OS. I say open the > > source up completely under the BSD or equivalent license (as released in the > > FreeBSD OS) or remove it from the base OS. > > FreeBSD never said it needed to have all Open Source criteria software > (okay, I admit I'm pulling that right out of my ass, but that's the sense > I get from hanging out on about 8 lists for the past 6 months). And you > have to remember that for some people the GPL software is much worse in > the licensing sense than the license attached to IPFilter. I don't know anyone in the project that thinks that. Darren's current license is actually more restrictive (legally) than the GPL. I believe that his intentions are that his license is the same as the BSD license, but legally it is not. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15134.63234.55520.302502>