On Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 04:12:34PM -0500, Dennis wrote: > For your info, Bub, what makes the BSD license attractive is its usability > by commercial vendors, so maybe you should go play in Linuxland because > you are the one in the wrong camp, not me. the ability to take code, fix it > and incorporate it into a product WITHOUT giving back source is the ENTIRE > CONCEPT of the BSD license. Obviously so, but it serves no point to complain about an opensource driver's problem on an opensource list if you're going to fix it in your proprietary tree, say you did so, and not pass it on. Since nobody else gets to see your "fix", it won't solve a thing, for you or FreeBSD. > And why does all of your email have that stupid attachment? Whats the > matter, cant figure out how to use an open-source mailer? :-) What's the matter, don't know how to use pgp? -- wca
- Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2. Dennis
- Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2. Will Andrews
- Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2. Dennis
- Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2. Will Andrews
- Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2. Dennis
- Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2. Dan Langille
- Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2. Dennis
- Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2. Matthew Jacob
- Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2. Dan Langille
- Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2. Dennis
- Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2. Will Andrews
- Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2. Dennis
- Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2. David O'Brien
- old business (was Re: Intel driver... Matthew Jacob
- Re: old business (was Re: Intel dr... Dennis
- Re: old business (was Re: Intel dr... Matthew Jacob
- Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2. David O'Brien
- Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2. Peter Wemm
- Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2. Wes Peters
- Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2. Matthew Jacob
- Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2. Matthew Jacob