Quoting Volker, who wrote on Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 08:01:55PM +0100 .. > 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 > > > > 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. > > Brooks, > > 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. > > So I can assume the APSL license is (still) generally accepted for the BSDs?
Depends on what you call generally accepted. > If nobody complains about the APSL, I'll ping core for a green flag. > > Thanks > > Volker > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" --- end of quoted text --- -- Wilko Bulte [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"