Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2022 08:34:31 +0000 From: "=?utf-8?Q?Saifi=20Khan?=" <saifi.khan@nishan.io> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: =?utf-8?B?UmU6IEZyZWVCU0QgZmluYW5jaW5n?= Message-ID: <20221106083431.21465.qmail@s411.sureserver.com> In-Reply-To: <8166ec14-ba84-cae4-d481-eb4ddb141d@puchar.net> References: <8166ec14-ba84-cae4-d481-eb4ddb141d@puchar.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> -------Original Message------- > From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@puchar.net> > To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> > > And no Juniper listed. I remember some time ago FreeBSD switched to clang > because of Juniper pressure that said they have constant law problems > because of GNU general communist licence. Which was logical. > > but now i read that Juniper have "alternative" JunOS based on linux. Is > GNU general communist licence no longer a problem for Juniper? > @Wojciech GNU General Public License (GPLv2) is a free software license. You may be frustrated but GPL has consistently delivered ! Your choice of biased words is matched by your lack of understanding of co-opetition in technology markets, Linux kernel being the exemplar. NetBSD project was pressured by Wasabi. FreeBSD project was pressured by Juniper (as you write) and many other corps. LLVM-CLang was alll pumped up by Apple etc. Does that mean when waved dollars each project becomes a dancing queen (aka exploited) ? warm regards Saifi.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20221106083431.21465.qmail>