Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 17:43:24 -0500 From: Nikolas Britton <nikolas.britton@gmail.com> To: Diane Bruce <db@db.net> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BSDLinux OS Message-ID: <ef10de9a0508201543e4905f7@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20050820212745.GA2998@night.db.net> References: <ef10de9a0508200102148196e0@mail.gmail.com> <4306EAB7.4090001@skyforge.net> <ef10de9a05082010564e9eed5e@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.NEB.4.62.0508201159300.639@pilchuck.reedmedia.net> <ef10de9a050820141871305e20@mail.gmail.com> <20050820212745.GA2998@night.db.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 8/20/05, Diane Bruce <db@db.net> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 04:18:47PM -0500, Nikolas Britton wrote: > > On 8/20/05, Jeremy C. Reed <reed@reedmedia.net> wrote: > > > On Sat, 20 Aug 2005, Nikolas Britton wrote: > ... > > That's one of the things I really like about the *BSDs. Could we just > > take the 2.6 kernel and develop it as are own like we do with BIND and > > Sendmail, fork it? and keep the FreeBSD libs, just port them to the > > new kernel? >=20 > If you use non GPL as much as possible, I would love to see it. > I would also love to see the screaming from RMS. ah yes. priceless. If I where doing it I would probably mandate all new code be under a BSD or MIT Licence (or Public Domain etc.) before commit. I'm not a big fan of the GPL because it has too many restrictions, the LGPL is much better but BSD and MIT are the best. And yea I think RMS would be screaming if all the BSD tools where ported to Linux, everyone may want to use are tool set because of it's unencumbered and engineered (as a set) nature. How much code in FreeBSD is GPL, anyone know?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ef10de9a0508201543e4905f7>