Me too. I never said anything related to including something that is incompatible with Fedora license guidelines. But it's a piece of software that was created from the same problems that we have right now. It has compatibility with sysvinit scripts adn stuff like that.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.
If you take a look at the packages included in Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Fedora Core, you'll see that not all of them are GPL. Give OpenSSL and Apache a look.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.
Should we also exclude Mozilla and Gecko derivatives on that same thinking? CDDL is a simplified Mozilla Public License (see my previous email with the diff).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!).
You love their license but you're willing to take the Intellectual Property risks upon your shoulders? The license is so important to you but the fact that the license might not be valid is not? Weird.[ 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. ]
Cheers,
Răzvan
|
|
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
