Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 22:32:34 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net> To: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Cc: nate@sri.MT.net (Nate Williams), Hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Unzip for package tools (was re: FBSD 2.1) Message-ID: <199601290532.WAA07213@rocky.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: <199601290446.PAA09422@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> References: <199601170501.WAA07146@rocky.sri.MT.net> <199601290446.PAA09422@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Michael Smith writes:
> Nate Williams stands accused of saying:
> >
> > Actually, you can't modify the code and unless you promise to distribute
> > the source code of the original code. You *must* provide source code to
> > the software (this is GPL ish)
>
> Just after receiving this, I sent a query to the InfoZip people, seeing as
> it's their code anyway. I just received this reply, which I quote in
> full (headers pruned):
Okay, the part that is the stickler is:
{ begin quote }
> The binary-only issue is a little stickier; we really want people to be
> able to get their hands on our code. If you can essentially guarantee
> that everyone who receives the FreeBSD distribution will have Internet
> access (which is the case with OS/2 Warp via the Internet Access Kit),
> then it's sufficient to point at our WWW and/or ftp sites. Otherwise
> the distributor(s) should be prepared to mail out a floppy for a minimal
> charge if requested, assuming there's absolutely no room on the CD or
> whatever for another meg of source archives. (To our knowledge, no one
> ever makes such a request, but you never know.)
{ begin quote }
> ... As far as I can see, this answers most of the qualms that were raised
> about using InfoZip source in the package tools.
No, the above is also one of the the qualms I had.
> The only possible scenario I can see causing problems would be someone
> distributing a binary-only version of FreeBSD with all of the networking
> code removed but still keeping the package tools. I'd say that was
> pretty unlikely 8)
Actually, it's not unlikely in the least bit, and I would venture to say
even likely.
What about folks who plan on using FreeBSD as the OS for their product.
FreeBSD becomes the catalyst for providing the base functionality, so
providing sources is a hassle and not important. However, the package
tools are a great way of doing updates and installing new versions of
the 'product', so it would be nice to use the existing tools rather than
rolling a new (probably incompatible) tool to do the same thing. The
reason the BSD license is preferred over the GPL is because it gives the
users of the software the ability to both use and utilize the entire OS.
Obviously, this breaks down for things development tools (gcc and
friends) and other parts of the system, but those aren't necessary to
build a running system for the most part. (Actually, ld.so is both
GPL'd and necessary which is too bad unless you want to build a static
only system).
Again, it's not a super-critical problem, but it's also not the best of
solutions either.
Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199601290532.WAA07213>