licensing question APSL

[Brooks Davis]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 08:01:55PM +0100, Volker wrote:
> On 02/14/08 16:02, Brooks Davis wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 07:39:27AM +0100, Volker wrote:
> >> PRs in question: bin/67307 bin/67308
> > 
> > The quotes on the followup are essentially correct except that explicit
> > approval is required by core to add new Non-BSD-Licensed code and
> > that there would need to be a mechanism to not build them as part of
> > buildworld to allow environments that do not want to deal with the APSL
> > to avoid it similar to GPL or CDDL code.
> 
> Brooks,
> 
> thank you for your opinion on that. The PR followup stating the APSL
> license is ok, has been the statement of the original PR submitter, so I
> don't trust that in the first place. That's why I was asking here for
> that license if there's a common agreement.
> 
> So I can assume the APSL license is (still) generally accepted for the BSDs?

APSL is not generally accepted in the base.  It may be acceptable in
certain circumstances, but strong technical justification is generally
required for inclusion.

-- Brooks

> If nobody complains about the APSL, I'll ping core for a green flag.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Volker
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-hackers at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/attachments/20080214/0a84aae5/attachment.pgp