Distributed Version Control for ports(7) ( was: Re: autoconf
Carlos A. M. dos Santos
unixmania at gmail.com
Wed Sep 22 11:46:01 UTC 2010
Smells like Debian.
Smells like Slashdot.
I give up.
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Adam Vande More <amvandemore at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> freebsd-ports at freebsd.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
Not so young, but still crying out
Full of anger full of doubt
More information about the freebsd-ports