Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 19:49:43 -0500 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Apple's open source... Message-ID: <v04011707b314aa1b1a99@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <19990316235359.F432@shale.csir.co.za>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Other than complaining on how FreeBSD and NetBSD were not really given enough credit in the press releases for this, how do people think this Apple strategy will work out wrt *BSD's? Once the BSD's are given more credit, which is bound to happen (from Linux advocates complaining that "this isn't really linux", if nothing else), won't this give the *BSD's some more attention? Isn't that a good thing? Even if we don't get *attention*, won't this mean that developers might be "more inclined" to have their code compile under the *BSD's? Isn't that a good thing? We do need to improve the visibility of the *BSD connection, but if that is done, then what do people think about this? As to the licensing issues, I was assuming the "more restrictive license" referred to *Apple* source code that is being released. Ie, the source for Appletalk support, or HFS support, etc. They are releasing more source code than just the pieces from *BSD's, after all. Seems to me that this "more restrictive" license is an improvement over no source at all for those things -- which is the only license we used to have for them. --- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or drosih@rpi.edu Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?v04011707b314aa1b1a99>