Return to BSD News archive
Received: by minnie.vk1xwt.ampr.org with NNTP id AA1740 ; Tue, 23 Feb 93 14:55:58 EST Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!agate!agate!dpassage From: dpassage@soda.berkeley.edu (David G. Paschich) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions Subject: Re: WFJ's talk last night... Date: 19 Feb 93 21:20:34 Organization: Organization? Who cares? You just gotta say "Go Bears!" Lines: 19 Message-ID: <DPASSAGE.93Feb19212034@soda.berkeley.edu> References: <C2nHuD.5EC@raistlin.udev.cdc.com> <1m1a0oINN8ds@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> <C2pJHs.Dsp@sugar.neosoft.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu In-reply-to: peter@NeoSoft.com's message of Fri, 19 Feb 1993 18:03:28 GMT 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? He never used the words "gnu" or "FSF" (or AT&T or BSDI, for that matter), but Bill made it pretty clear that he meant no GPL'd code in the kernel or libraries. In the utilities was fine with him, but not in the "core" system. I think the way he worded it was that free systems are about experimentation and sharing, not about imposing obligations on the people who use and modify it. I think his license ideas are more in line with the Berkeley license, though you'd have to ask him to be sure.