Re: slink is gone, goals for potato?
On Mon, 1 Mar 1999, James A. Treacy wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 01, 1999 at 06:29:59PM -0800, Joel Klecker wrote:
> > At 20:51 -0500 1999-03-01, Phillip R. Jaenke wrote:
> > >> Libraries
> > >> glibc 2.1 - lots of recompiles
> > >
> > >I won't support glibc 2.1 fully till licensing issues are resolved. And
> > >GNU won't release it till those issues are resolved. So that's up in the
> > >air for now at least.
> >
> > FUCK! HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES MUST I FUCKING REPEAT THIS, THERE ARE NO
> > FUCKING LICENSING ISSUES! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK!
> >
> Instead of losing it, why don't you point us to a place where this is
> discussed rationally? It seems most people have only heard something
> about the initial release of 2.1 being yanked of the ftp server due
> to a copyright problem. Enlighten us.
(I think Joel gets "most animated reply" award for the week.) The only
discussion I've seen was on Slashdot :-/, and what I picked up there
(insert appropriate Slashdot disclaimers here) was that FSF had problems
with the DB2 part (think Sleepycat) of glibc 2.1, because of its BSD
licensing. So, they yanked the library because of that. (My recollection
of the Sleepcat license of libdb2 is that you just can't distribute it
inside of another product without some restrictions. Perhaps this is the
issue.) Anyway, a bunch of people (Joel evidently included) have
expressed the opinion that this is a "political issue" and not a "license
issue" per se. Maybe there's some more info on it in the debian-legal
archives, but I haven't checked.
Andy
Reply to: