Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 18:08:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Darren Henderson <darren@nighttide.net> To: papowell@astart.com Cc: drosih@rpi.edu, imp@village.org, andrews@technologist.com, arch@FreeBSD.ORG, nik@FreeBSD.ORG, sheldonh@uunet.co.za, will@almanac.yi.org Subject: Re: Bringing LPRng into FreeBSD? - License Issues Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007091755580.13726-100000@jasper.nighttide.net> In-Reply-To: <200007092102.OAA21518@h4.private>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 9 Jul 2000 papowell@astart.com wrote:
>
> What is wrong with retaining the ability to display copyright
> information from the command line options? What undue burden does
> it place on commercial users of FreeBSD? And if they modify the
Yet another license variation.
> code, wouldn't it be good Systems Engineering Practice to have
> some way to verify that?
They have to retain the copyright info in the source so the information is
there.
The package is in ports and it doesn't seem anyone is advocating that it
be removed. If it is to be in the primary distribution then it should have
the same, not the same with a proviso, license, if at all possible. If it
can not have the same license then there needs to be some hugely overiding
need to bring in into the core. That doesn't seem to be the case.
______________________________________________________________________
Darren Henderson darren@nighttide.net
Help fight junk e-mail, visit http://www.cauce.org/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0007091755580.13726-100000>