Subject: Re: sendmail licensing again
To: Todd Vierling <>
From: Thor Lancelot Simon <>
List: current-users
Date: 12/11/1998 16:20:09
On Fri, Dec 11, 1998 at 03:21:00PM -0500, Todd Vierling wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> : What could be difficult about this even if the source is totally
> : integrated?????
> : 
> : Someone simply uses a script to maintain a list of GPL-ed files:
> : 
> : 	cd /usr/src
> : 	find . -print | xargs grep -ni 'free software foundation' |
> : 		awk -F: '{print $1}' | sort -u > share/misc/gnu-src.list
> Not all GPL'd software has this phrase, but that's rather moot.  What this
> won't catch is the `modifications' - which includes our build mechanisms for
> this source.
> Again, though, what do you *gain* by doing this convoluted command instead
> of putting the stuff together, since a vendor needs to grab that *bundle*
> anyway?

The ability to be contrarian on every point and to wank endlessly on the
mailing list about a "problem" which already has a perfectly good solution.
I'm sorry, but that's about all I, for one, can see from here.

> It's pretty easy to see that this command is more difficult than a plain
> "tar" of a directory, and has to be kept up to date whereas a directory
> maintains itself.

Exactly.  I further submit that anyone who had any experience with
building and packaging a NetBSD distribution would avoid further
file-lists, global finds to keep them up to date, etc. without even
considering otherwise.  Systems like the one Greg's proposing are
a collossal pain in the ass.  Different is not, by necessity, better.

> : Personally when I distribute a customized copy of NetBSD to a customer
> : in return for fees I make *all* the source available to them, GPL-ed or
> : not.
> That's not necessarily the case for other vendors - and there are more than
> you probably realize.

I distribute NetBSD in both source/binary and binary-only formats, depending
on application and customer.  I have one product in development which won't
include any GPL'ed code (if it _must_ run on an a.out architecture, we'll
either put in the programmer-time to turn that architecture ELF or ship
only static binaries) and which will *never, ever* ship with source;
given the market we're selling into, that's pretty much the only prudent
business decision.  Moreover, it's my choice; and the current organization
makes it quite clear what's GPL'ed and is not, and I'd object strongly
to any contrived system seemingly constructed for the purposes of
argument and with no thought whatsoever to my convenience, which made
that less clear.