Distributed Version Control for ports(7) ( was: Re: autoconf
Adam Vande More
amvandemore at gmail.com
Wed Sep 22 10:11:43 UTC 2010
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:10 AM, Jeremy Chadwick
<freebsd at jdc.parodius.com>wrote:
> Given the amount of GPL'd software in the base system, why are we
> already fighting over licensing? What is it with the open-source world
> and obsessing with licensing? It should be up for discussion after
> alternatives have been determined as viable candidates (see below).
Probably rhetorical, but not all licenses are created equal. BSD license
has a particular advantage in embedded/black box systems, so not polluting
base with more viral licensing is pretty important to project as whole I
think. There's a reason things like IronPort aren't Linux based. Take for
example the way ZFS was implemented. It was done that way to keep the CDDL
out of the kernel. That's part of the reason booting of ZFS is the way it
is as a separate loader, not integrated. Licenses are a big deal, our world
is not laissez-faire regarding them.
Yes there are still some GPL tools in base but the number is really quite
small and shrinking, however what's there is pretty big and quite
essential. There has long been active if not frequently vigorous work to
remove those bits. It seems GNU grep is nearing it's end, and man page
stuff is being worked on, CLANG over GCC, etc.
Anyway, my point was not to advocate fossil for this task, but to point out
BSD license is a concern. Perhaps if you are able to find consensus,
requesting a license change might be an option.
Adam Vande More
More information about the freebsd-ports