Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 07:09:59 -0500 (CDT) From: Peter da Silva <peter@bonkers.taronga.com> To: asami@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Satoshi Asami | =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCQHUbKEI=?= =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCOCsbKEIgGyRCOC0bKEI=?=) Cc: dufault@hda.com, babkin@hq.icb.chel.su, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: pcnfsd or bwnfsd Message-ID: <199505191210.HAA08885@bonkers.taronga.com> In-Reply-To: <199505191019.DAA10561@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> from "Satoshi Asami | =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCQHUbKEI=?= =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCOCsbKEIgGyRCOC0bKEI=?=" at May 19, 95 03:19:45 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Um...I guess we can't put the source code on the CDROM but the binary > package is ok. Is that the correct interpretation? Ask them what they mean by "don't charge money for the source code". Many places that say that have no problem with having the source on a CDROM along with a bunch of other packages. Others have an aversion to CDROM distribution. Since they allow binary distribution I suspect they just don't want you charging extra for the source above and beyond the binaries.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199505191210.HAA08885>