Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 08:38:19 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: WHS <wouters@cistron.nl> Cc: tech@openbsd.org, misc@openbsd.org, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GGI Message-ID: <13291.907601899@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 05 Oct 1998 15:42:02 %2B0200." <3618CCAA.75189840@cistron.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> It's now up to you all: is there any interest in using GGI given the
> current license situation?
This would probably be a fine time to get into Yet Another License
battle except for the fact that I am personally sick of license
battles right now and restrict myself to caring about stuff which is
actually on the critical path, like important device drivers or the
compiler toolchain, leaving the license issues for less critical items
to be debated by those with the time and inclination to argue about
licensing until old age sets in (and probably well past that point).
In the specific case of GGI, I certainly don't care either way. If
there are GPL'd kernel bits, then we just make them available as
optional add-ons like ext2fs and the other bits in /usr/src/sys/gnu.
If someone wants to do a binary-only kernel release, they leave out
/usr/src/{.,*/}gnu as always and life goes on. Hardly something worth
self-combusting over, and not a feature we've gotten a lot of requests
for in any case, so from the purely "user request drive" standpoint
it's also not anywhere on my short-range map.
To summarize: Have the authors do as they like with the GGI license.
It's not a gating factor (here) in the acceptance of the software.
- Jordan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?13291.907601899>