Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 09:16:06 +0100 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Christopher Masto <chris@netmonger.net> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL issues (Was: More important Windows Refund Day coverage) Message-ID: <19990223091605.D2606@bitbox.follo.net> In-Reply-To: <19990222143416.A25682@netmonger.net>; from Christopher Masto on Mon, Feb 22, 1999 at 02:34:16PM -0500 References: <199902211924.OAA02025@y.dyson.net> <19990221180845.J93492@lemis.com> <199902211924.OAA02025@y.dyson.net> <19990222082525.A1429@ska.bsn> <4.1.19990221233032.03fffba0@mail.lariat.org> <19990222143416.A25682@netmonger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Feb 22, 1999 at 02:34:16PM -0500, Christopher Masto wrote: > On Sun, Feb 21, 1999 at 11:37:17PM -0700, Brett Glass wrote: > bad. We can still get along. Every day I use FreeBSD it bothers me a > little that things like softupdates and parts of vinum are not free > software. Maybe one day I or someone else will write free Soft updates come under a license that is approximately as restrictive as the GPL. Vinum has parts restrictively licensed to pay for the development of the other parts. The parts that haven't been freed yet will be freed later (if I understood Greg Lehey correctly). These aren't the parts that bother me. What bothers me is the restrictively licensed "core parts" - awk, dc, cpio, grep, diff, grep, gzip, sort, tar, uucp. I'm bothered a tiny bit by the toolchain being restrictively licensed, but not as much. I believe that a restrictive license like the GPL may be the right choice for development tools (though NOT the GPL itself, due to the number of ways you can screw yourself with it, and the lack of ability of a reasonable entity to gran exceptions). Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990223091605.D2606>