Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 19:56:23 -0500 From: Charlie Root <root@scsn.net> To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, dmaddox@scsn.net Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The BSD License Message-ID: <19980129195623.55979@scsn.net> In-Reply-To: <19980130111804.13786@lemis.com>; from Greg Lehey on Fri, Jan 30, 1998 at 11:18:04AM %2B1030 References: <19980129190335.64088@scsn.net> <19980130105847.60343@lemis.com> <19980129194229.16307@scsn.net> <19980130111804.13786@lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jan 30, 1998 at 11:18:04AM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote: > On Thu, Jan 29, 1998 at 07:42:29PM -0500, Donald J. Maddox wrote: > > > > Thanks for the reply, Greg... This interpretation is pretty close to > > what I got out of it. So, I guess this means if I want to be able to > > include STAC compression into FreeBSD, then _they_ have to be willing > > to allow STAC to be distributed with no further restrictions than the > > above... Is that right? > > If they want to distribute it under a Berkeley license, yes. Unlike > the GPL, there's no obligation to distribute *everything* in a product > under this license, however. In the terminology of the GPL opponents, > the Berkeley license doens't infect software it touches. Ok, now you've confused me :-/ Exactly what restrictions are acceptable on code distributed with the base system, like ppp? What are some examples of what _is not_ acceptable?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980129195623.55979>