From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Feb 20 2:51:58 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from smtp02.primenet.com (smtp02.primenet.com [206.165.6.132]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA91B37B401 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 02:51:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert@usr05.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp02.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA24099; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 03:45:44 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr05.primenet.com(206.165.6.205) via SMTP by smtp02.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAMRaWdV; Tue Feb 20 03:45:43 2001 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr05.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id DAA14037; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 03:51:53 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <200102201051.DAA14037@usr05.primenet.com> Subject: Re: DJBDNS vs. BIND To: dillon@earth.backplane.com (Matt Dillon) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:51:53 +0000 (GMT) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert), bright@wintelcom.net (Alfred Perlstein), josb@cncdsl.com, arch@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <200102200652.f1K6qnw40602@earth.backplane.com> from "Matt Dillon" at Feb 19, 2001 10:52:49 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > Look Terry, I went through one of those damn aquisitions... AND a merger, > with BEST. I know you really want to make a mountain out of a molehill > but all you are doing here is creating confusion over a non-issue. It is > unnecessary. There is no problem here and there never was. I wish you would quit fixating on BEST, since I pointed out that the license had changed, and the risk only existed for the old license. I went through IBMs acquisition of Whistle: a 6 month+ due dilligence process, which resulted in us getting rid of some code that we had planned to ship on the next InterJet software release, due to IBMs belief it was infringing on their patents, and was distributed under the GPL, which they believed could be construed as a royalty free license for anyone to use the patents involved, should they demand source code. I am only talking about what lawyers view as risk. Acceptability of any given risk is a business decision, and one that people shouldn't be forced into simply by electing to use FreeBSD. For FreeBSD itself, the biggest risk the lawyers saw was Poul's "BeerWare" license, FWIW. The main take aways from this discussion should be that FreeBSD needs to be careful of the licenses on the code it lets into its tree (as it _was_ with the Soft Updates code, under the old license), and that FreeBSD, philosophically, as a group, isn't going to be easily talked away from that position, if ever. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message