Return to BSD News archive
Received: by minnie.vk1xwt.ampr.org with NNTP id AA1799 ; Tue, 23 Feb 93 14:58:45 EST Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!rpi!batcomputer!cornell!uw-beaver!newsfeed.rice.edu!rice!news.Rice.edu!rich From: rich@Rice.edu (Richard Murphey) Subject: Re: WFJ's talk last night... In-Reply-To: peter@NeoSoft.com's message of Fri, 19 Feb 1993 18:03:28 GMT Message-ID: <RICH.93Feb20220426@omicron.Rice.edu> Sender: news@rice.edu (News) Reply-To: Rich@Rice.edu Organization: Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Rice University References: <C2nHuD.5EC@raistlin.udev.cdc.com> <1m1a0oINN8ds@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> <C2pJHs.Dsp@sugar.neosoft.com> Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 04:04:26 GMT Lines: 19 In article <C2pJHs.Dsp@sugar.neosoft.com> peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > *** Only freely modifiable and redistributable code will be put into > kernel and libraries. Is it possible to get a clarification of this phrase? Does WFJ consider GPL code consistent with this? Well, no. I'm told he wants to focus on incorporating code that will permit us to maintain the current terms of source and binary distribution. In that sense adding GPL code could place new restrictions on redistribution. I think the GPL is a great thing, but in this context a single GPLed file in the library could place new restrictions on the majority of the binary release. But I'm not an official spokesman of course, so take this with a grain of salt. Rich