> > We have a whole bunch of others to fix. I have contacted the authors
> > of the other packages. I am optimistic that we can get most of these
> > issues worked out.
>
> A comment that I found quite apt in the midst of the current licensing
> saga was from a member of the core FreeBSD team regarding the Darren
> Reed's IPF Licensing 'clarification'[1]:
>
> "That's not quite the way we would have chosen it, but it doesn't
> really affect the FreeBSD project."
>
> I love OpenSource as much as the next person, but there must be a line
> between 'sticking to our goals' and 'reasonableness'.

Hmm, let's see here.

If the University of California Berkeley, and the CSRG, and Bostic,
and Karels, and McKusick, and a huge cast of others, had felt as you
do, where would we be now? First off, Net1 wouldn't have happened.
Then Net2 wouldn't have happened. Then 4.4-lite wouldn't have
happened. Then a lawsuit wouldn't have happened. Then when a lawsuit
did happen, they would have said "Sorry AT&T, you are right".

And we wouldn't be here.

Those guys spent a couple of YEARS rewriting AT&T code so that BSD
unix could be free.

I am known for being frank; so let me be so. Your attitude is
completely wimpy.

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]