From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Feb 7 23:09:18 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA25416 for freebsd-chat-outgoing; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 23:09:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from kithrup.com (kithrup.com [205.179.156.40]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA25398 for ; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 23:09:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sef@kithrup.com) Received: (from sef@localhost) by kithrup.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA07811; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 23:09:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sef) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 23:09:14 -0800 (PST) From: Sean Eric Fagan Message-Id: <199902080709.XAA07811@kithrup.com> To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL *again* (was: New CODA release) In-Reply-To: <199902080636.WAA42408.kithrup.freebsd.chat@rah.star-gate.com> References: Your message of "Sun, 07 Feb 1999 23:21:07 MST." <4.1.19990207230639.009284c0@mail.lariat.org> Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd. Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org In article <199902080636.WAA42408.kithrup.freebsd.chat@rah.star-gate.com> you write: >What I wonder if it is okay to distribute a kernel module with >a given licensing scheme then all of the sudden perhaps inspire >by fad to switch the licensing scheme specially when it is well >known that kernel modules sometimes are decided to be included >in a distribution due to their licensing scheme. Last time I checked, the kernel code was not going under the GPL, and, in fact, the Coda team had expressed willingess to assign copyright of those modules to the NetBSD/FreeBSD/whatever project. Did that change, or did you not bother to find out what the actual license terms were and just made a knee-jerk reaction? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message