Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 01 Feb 2009 10:48:42 -0600
From:      "Jeremy Messenger" <mezz7@cox.net>
To:        obrien@freebsd.org
Cc:        "Pedro F. Giffuni" <giffunip@tutopia.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Alternatives to gcc
Message-ID:  <op.uoomb4u79aq2h7@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <20090201060549.GE83330@dragon.NUXI.org>
References:  <61484.71762.qm@web32708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <86skniyp60.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20090201060549.GE83330@dragon.NUXI.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 00:05:49 -0600, David O'Brien <obrien@freebsd.org>
wrote:

> "Pedro F. Giffuni" <giffunip@tutopia.com> writes:
>> - Replacing groff with something less restricted that doesn't require
>> C++: Heirloom-doctools may be an option.
>
> You're proposing replacing GPLv2 stuff with CDDL'ed stuff?
>
>     $ cd heirloom-doctools-080407> grep -l -R CDDL * | wc -l
>          217
>
> The last time I asked $WORK's lawyers, GPLv2 was acceptable to
> *carefully* ship with our product.  CDDL was forbidden (as is GPLv3).

Interesting... I thought, CDDL is more flexible than GPLv2? Or do I  
misunderstand something with CDDL?

Cheers,
Mezz


-- 
mezz7@cox.net  -  mezz@FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD GNOME Team
http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/  -  gnome@FreeBSD.org



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?op.uoomb4u79aq2h7>