Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 13:32:18 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no> To: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>, "Pedro F. Giffuni" <pfgiffun@bachue.usc.unal.edu.co> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: More on the Intel-UNIX standard Message-ID: <19980921133218.15796@follo.net> In-Reply-To: <199809210446.VAA03265@word.smith.net.au>; from Mike Smith on Sun, Sep 20, 1998 at 09:46:24PM -0700 References: <3605C5CB.C61EAC21@bachue.usc.unal.edu.co> <199809210446.VAA03265@word.smith.net.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Sep 20, 1998 at 09:46:24PM -0700, Mike Smith wrote: > > A GPL is inconvenient because companies won't want to be forced to > > distribute source code of a key part with the OS. GPL was designed to > > live only with GPL and I don't think Compaq, IBM and SUN will accept it. > > We must start pressing for a BSD-like license here. > > OTOH the Open Group is already understanding ... > > There's no need for the reference implementation to be GPL-contaminated > - it can be shipped as patches to the Linux kernel rather than > integrated with it, and those patches need not be GPL'ed. I don't think this is correct. I believe the patches would count as a derived work, and thus would be covered by the GPL. :-( Eivind. 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?19980921133218.15796>