Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 16:57:20 -0600 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> To: Jeremy Messenger <mezz7@cox.net> Cc: "Pedro F. Giffuni" <giffunip@tutopia.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Alternatives to gcc Message-ID: <20090201225720.GA16332@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> In-Reply-To: <op.uoomb4u79aq2h7@localhost> References: <61484.71762.qm@web32708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <86skniyp60.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20090201060549.GE83330@dragon.NUXI.org> <op.uoomb4u79aq2h7@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--MGYHOYXEY6WxJCY8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: >=20 >> "Pedro F. Giffuni" <giffunip@tutopia.com> writes: >>> - Replacing groff with something less restricted that doesn't require >>> C++: Heirloom-doctools may be an option. >>=20 >> You're proposing replacing GPLv2 stuff with CDDL'ed stuff? >>=20 >> $ cd heirloom-doctools-080407> grep -l -R CDDL * | wc -l >> 217 >>=20 >> The last time I asked $WORK's lawyers, GPLv2 was acceptable to >> *carefully* ship with our product. CDDL was forbidden (as is GPLv3). >=20 > Interesting... I thought, CDDL is more flexible than GPLv2? Or do I=20 > misunderstand something with CDDL? Some provisions of CDDL make lawyers uncomfortable, the patent provisions in particular. -- Brooks --MGYHOYXEY6WxJCY8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFJhijQXY6L6fI4GtQRAr62AJ9zFd0O85zWOO69pah8mXUUY41XpgCgmAmJ PGjP+187gYY/k3bvbK8KN8U= =dT8G -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --MGYHOYXEY6WxJCY8--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090201225720.GA16332>