On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Diane Bruce <d...@db.net> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 08:02:37PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote: >> On 24 January 2011 19:31, Diane Bruce <d...@db.net> wrote: >> >> > As long as it is not GPL. >> >> Unless there's a missing smiley in that sentence there, it is a tough > > IRL I'm known to be very dry humoured, I am deadly in e-mail or IRC. > >> requirement. Of the major SCMs, only Subversion is non-GPL-ed (even > > QED > >> CVS is...). > > CVS is/was dual licenced. There is also the work openbsd started with CVS > sometime ago. > > Given the work that is being done on clang/llvm to get a non GPL compiler > into the tree, perhaps efforts would be better spent on finding SCMs > that were also non GPL. There certainly would not be a chance of putting > mercurial or git into base for example.
But we don't compile CVS, SVN, etc into our sources. I thought that was the whole point of doing the gcc -> clang (and friends) conversion, not that the GPL is an undesirable license. Maybe I was missing something about the whole textproc stuff being replaced though (groff, etc) with NetBSD equivalents *shrugs*. Given that this is getting more philosophical than technical, maybe we should move the discussion elsewhere (i.e. not hackers@)? > Perhaps a point to consider. Thanks! -Garrett _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"