Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 21:17:49 +0200 (CEST) From: Søren Schmidt <sos@FreeBSD.ORG> To: wouters@cistron.nl (WHS) Cc: tech@openbsd.org, misc@openbsd.org, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GGI Message-ID: <199810051917.VAA15184@sos.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: <3618F60E.4B7A0301@cistron.nl> from WHS at "Oct 5, 98 06:38:38 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In reply to WHS who wrote:
>
> I didn't want a license debate, more a statement like: 'if libggi = LGPL
> then GGI won't be standard on BSD and very likely, in my view, won't be
> used by many people'. Which from the rest of your mail I see is the
> case.
We do not encourage use of the LGPL, and most of our userbase will probably
avoid it.
> > In the specific case of GGI, I certainly don't care either way. If
> > there are GPL'd kernel bits, then we just make them available as
>
> No, that will be BSD (or X if that's ok). Just the library (which is
> needed to use the kernel code) is LGPL.
That effectively makes the code LGPL, we have no use for the kernel
bits without the library.
> What I'm also getting at is this: If kernel internals change, then the
> KGI (kernel part of GGI) may have to be altered and you (or another BSD
> hacker) won't be inclined to do this for a piece that can only be used
> with a LGPL lib, right?
Exactly, and I'm not sure we can agree on if the KGI bits should get in
there in the first place.
Besides we already have code in the kernel to handle some of what
GGI wants to do, so the point might be somewhat moot.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Søren Schmidt (sos@FreeBSD.org) FreeBSD Core Team
Even more code to hack -- will it ever end?
..
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199810051917.VAA15184>