--bp/iNruPH9dso1Pn
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 08:01:55PM +0100, Volker wrote:
> On 02/14/08 16:02, Brooks Davis wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 07:39:27AM +0100, Volker wrote:
> >> PRs in question: bin/67307 bin/67308
> >=20
> > The quotes on the followup are essentially correct except that explicit
> > approval is required by core to add new Non-BSD-Licensed code and
> > that there would need to be a mechanism to not build them as part of
> > buildworld to allow environments that do not want to deal with the APSL
> > to avoid it similar to GPL or CDDL code.
>=20
> Brooks,
>=20
> thank you for your opinion on that. The PR followup stating the APSL
> license is ok, has been the statement of the original PR submitter, so I
> don't trust that in the first place. That's why I was asking here for
> that license if there's a common agreement.
>=20
> So I can assume the APSL license is (still) generally accepted for the BS=
Ds?
APSL is not generally accepted in the base. It may be acceptable in
certain circumstances, but strong technical justification is generally
required for inclusion.
-- Brooks
> If nobody complains about the APSL, I'll ping core for a green flag.
>=20
> Thanks
>=20
> Volker
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
>=20
--bp/iNruPH9dso1Pn
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFHtJPQXY6L6fI4GtQRAncyAJ9V2p9+fT1tseVmtLGj1SmVZgitCQCfdmbG
YlGEP9ZGhl1RIy8mi/Z1+58=
=LX0r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--bp/iNruPH9dso1Pn--