Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:23:37 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: cswiger@mac.com Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: groff alternative? Message-ID: <20050615.212337.108191340.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <88862BDF-ED45-42CE-9B24-DEEED2E66C2C@mac.com> References: <20050615054209.L29741@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> <20050615160741.GA55062@dragon.NUXI.org> <88862BDF-ED45-42CE-9B24-DEEED2E66C2C@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <88862BDF-ED45-42CE-9B24-DEEED2E66C2C@mac.com>
Charles Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> writes:
: If the sole criterion is whether the CDDL permits one to redistribute
: private modifications in binary form without source, you're right
: that the CDDL is in the same boat as the GPL.
Wearing my system integration hat, I can tell you that this is a PITA
to comply with. One or two isn't so bad, but when you get dozens of
these things here and there it becomes burdonsome to comply with and
creates more work for each distribution that we do. There's also the
whole 'does putting it in an embedded system count as distribution or
not' question that remains unanswered, even in the CDDL. WRT the GPL,
some say it does (Stallman) while other say it doesn't (Torvalds).
Anyway, since we don't ship groff/roff/etc with the systems we create,
this specific program doesn't matter much...
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050615.212337.108191340.imp>