Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 09:02:52 +0100 From: Paul Robinson <paul@iconoplex.co.uk> To: Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org> Cc: FreeBSD Chat <freebsd-chat@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RMS says: "Use BSD, for goodness sake!" Message-ID: <20030630080252.GK57378@iconoplex.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20030628052710.GK29066@wantadilla.lemis.com> References: <3EFBFEBD.B8772772@mindspring.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20030625214311.00e5e240@localhost> <20030626110336.GW34365@iconoplex.co.uk> <20030626113553.GA53078@packet.org.uk> <20030626122023.GB763@nitro.dk> <20030626124601.GB57378@iconoplex.co.uk> <3EFBFEBD.B8772772@mindspring.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20030627133739.035722d0@localhost> <20030628052710.GK29066@wantadilla.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jun 28, 2003 at 02:57:10PM +0930, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > I note that most of the discussion on this topic was by people who are > not central to the FreeBSD project. =20 That's because the people central to the project have better things to do= =20 with their time than look at what the actual effort is to remove GPL code= =20 `from the base of FreeBSD. For those of us that looked the answer was "not= =20 much". Sorry if you think that's a useless answer, but personally I found i= t=20 quite revealing. > As you know, few people are as > zealous as you are about wanting to rid the project of GPL'd code. That's not the issue. As far as I, and a hefty percentage of the rest of the user base are concerned, BSD is about choice, not political ideals. I should have the choice of running a completely non-GPL BSD. I can do that - I can run Open, but I'd much rather run FreeBSD, particularly when the effort is as small as we've identified it really is. =20 > If anything, FreeBSD is gradually removing GPLd code where it makes > sense. IIRC you hadn't noticed when we changed from GNU awk to nawk. Actually, there are differences. But that's another conversation. =20 > We've said it before: provide us with a good replacement and we'll > consider it seriously. Go ahead. I would *really* like to see a > replacement for gdb, for example. There are at most half a dozen apps that require the retention of the current GPL implementation. The rest can either be rm'ed (nobody uses them), replaced with BSD licensed versions, or moved out to ports. Awk can be moved to non-GPL just by MFC'ing a change already in -CURRENT. The effort to do all this is relatively small. I'd do it, you wouldn't notice, but I don't (as you know) have any ability to make those changes. But why the hostility towards doing it? I know this has the whiff of a bikeshed about it, but to me it makes sense. Perhaps I'm missing something... =20 > > To insist upon blind forward "progress" while the enemy is in fact > > nipping at our flanks is to ensure defeat. The price of not > > standing up for principle now will be to lose our very REAL freedom > > in exchange for Stallman's false "freedom." >=20 > Most people in the FreeBSD project don't see things quite like that. Agreed, they don't. I don't. But when a BSD can be made GPL-clean with the= =20 exception of a compiler and debugger, and others are already doing so, I=20 don't see what the reasons are for retaining GPL code when it makes sense= =20 for as much of the base to be BSD, as is possible.... Again, I think I must be missing something. Greg is normally right in these= =20 matters, I just don't see his point this time... --=20 Paul Robinson
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030630080252.GK57378>