On Tue, Apr 27, 1999 at 09:45:23AM -0400, Elie Rosenblum wrote: > And thus spake John Goerzen, on Tue, Apr 27, 1999 at 08:33:38AM -0500: > > The same as for using FreeBSD itself: it's got a nasty BSD license. > > Er, the BSD license is still DFSG free, last I checked. And many of > the BSD zealots have a somewhat good argument that the BSD license > is less restrictive and more open than GPL. Without starting this one again, there are also GNU zealots who think anything less than the GPL is non-free. I would hate to have either extreme decide whether or not my packages are "free" enough. > I hope any _real_ issues that are pushing for using a non-standard > BSD libc are not simply anti-BSD-license related - Debian FreeBSD > without compatibility with the mainstream FreeBSD distro would be > the logical equivalent of us forking off our own incompatible libc > in Debian Linux and dropping any intention of trying to maintain > compatibility with other Linuces. perhaps we should consider supporting both their libc and our glibc on the BSD kernel? -- Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> Debian GNU/Linux developer PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBE The Source Comes First! ------------------------------------------------------------------------- While the year 2000 (y2k) problem is not an issue for us, all Linux implementations will impacted by the year 2038 (y2.038k) issue. The Debian Project is committed to working with the industry on this issue and we will have our full plans and strategy posted by the first quarter of 2020.
Attachment:
pgpACW7YD67NS.pgp
Description: PGP signature