Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:01:55 +0100 From: Volker <volker@vwsoft.com> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: licensing question APSL Message-ID: <47B49023.20204@vwsoft.com> In-Reply-To: <20080214150200.GB18534@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> References: <47B3E21F.1010202@vwsoft.com> <20080214150200.GB18534@lor.one-eyed-alien.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 02/14/08 16:02, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 07:39:27AM +0100, Volker wrote: >> PRs in question: bin/67307 bin/67308 > > The quotes on the followup are essentially correct except that explicit > approval is required by core to add new Non-BSD-Licensed code and > that there would need to be a mechanism to not build them as part of > buildworld to allow environments that do not want to deal with the APSL > to avoid it similar to GPL or CDDL code. Brooks, thank you for your opinion on that. The PR followup stating the APSL license is ok, has been the statement of the original PR submitter, so I don't trust that in the first place. That's why I was asking here for that license if there's a common agreement. So I can assume the APSL license is (still) generally accepted for the BSDs? If nobody complains about the APSL, I'll ping core for a green flag. Thanks Volker
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47B49023.20204>