From: Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> > Just the hazy memory of a conversation I had. I'll try to dig up > some. It's GPL-incompatible, of course. > What could be done with it is the same thing that's done with > launchd; look at the docs/manauls, see the general way it works, > and go from there. But looking at the code and trying to reimplement > it that way is right out. I have to completely agree with Bill. You can't just GPL something (other than BSD and rare other exceptions), and I'm 100% in agreement with Red Hat on keeping everything GPL. With that said, has anyone approached Sun about dual-licensing SMF? If they are open to it, great. If not, then don't even bother looking at it (let alone avoid the code!). [ Professional Side Note: One of the reasons I have not done much Java other than required (largely in the financial industry) is because of not only the license of it, but most of the libraries -- even IBM's (which are no better). It's also the reason I'm a huge fan of Mono's GPL/LGPL/BSD compiler/library/classlibs. ] -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
