groff alternative?
David O'Brien
obrien at freebsd.org
Fri Jun 17 19:23:33 GMT 2005
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 01:03:00AM -0400, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> Perhaps there won't be a rush of code adoption from OpenSolaris into
> FreeBSD, but it would be a surprise and a pity if there was nothing to be
> learned. I'd imagine that the Solaris NFS code would be worth looking at,
> for instance.
>
> Lots of license flavors are handled OK via src/contrib and throughout the
> entire ports collection now. It's not as if CDDL-licensed code is going to
> sneak up and infect existing BSD-licensed code; the two licenses are
> miscible.
...
> Well, there's no shortage of wacky opinions about people running
> proprietary code on top of GPLed systems. For example, Eben Moglen and
> Bruce Perens would like to sue ATI and nVidia for releasing proprietary
> drivers for Linux. [1]
So? Do we want FreeBSD to be in the middle of the courts again? 1994
was enough for me. We want free, do anything you damned well please
code. Unless there is a *compelling reason*.
> 4-sec% /usr/bin/nroff --version
> GNU nroff (groff) version 1.19
> 5-sec% uname -a
> FreeBSD sec.pkix.net 4.11-STABLE FreeBSD 4.11-STABLE #0: Sat Jun 11
> 00:25:38 EDT 2005 root at sec.pkix.net:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/NORMAL i386
>
> This seems to be from src/contrib/groff?
Yes. But the issue is, why trade one piece of non-BSDL licensed code for
another non-BSDL licensed piece of code?? What does changing from Groff
to Solaris Troff actually buy us?? Groff is the standard in Roff. Even
people writing books on systems with a native Troff install Groff to get
a more powerful and easier to use Roff.
--
-- David (obrien at FreeBSD.org)
More information about the freebsd-current
mailing list