Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 11:57:55 +1030 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: dmaddox@scsn.net Cc: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The BSD License Message-ID: <199801300127.LAA00560@word.smith.net.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 29 Jan 1998 20:20:19 CDT." <19980129202019.32143@scsn.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Ok, at this point, I think I have asked the wrong question. It seems > to me that the important question wrt STAC is 'What are licensing terms > acceptable to the FreeBSD core team for software included in the base > distribution?', not 'What is the meaning and intent of the BSD license?'. I can summarise this (being reasonably familiar with the attitude through recent investigations of my own). - If source code is not available and freely redistributable, it is impossible for it to be included in the FreeBSD codebase. (This is really a no-brainer). I do not believe that STAC would be willing to release their code under these terms. *However* it is not unlikely that STAC would be willing to license the code to you under an NDA. It would be trivial to provide a generic pluggable-compression interface inside the user-PPP program. Thus, if you were willing to maintain the code yourself, you might well be able to provide a freely-redistributable STAC compression module which would plug into user-PPP. -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199801300127.LAA00560>