Subject: Re: vi update?
To: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
From: Jason Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/20/2000 20:57:27
On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 23:49:31 -0500 (EST)
der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> wrote:
> Then why don't we have more public-domain code in our tree? As it
> stands, our code cannot, for example, be used in sufficiently close
> conjunction with GPLed code.
That is total and complete nonsense. For an example, note there is
BSD-licenced code in the base Linux kernel distribution.
Now, regarding public domain code... I discussed this with a lawyer
a couple of years ago, and he left me with the impression that one
cannot disclaim warranty on "public domain" code... "public domain"
being code with no copyright at all, the type you are presumably
> I've seen it said that ego will be the death of *BSD. And when I
> contemplate this question, I fear that may be true, since as far as I
> can tell the main reason we don't have more public domain code is that
> coders want their names in advertising clauses. (Whether this is a
> good thing in other respects is a question on which the archives
> contain much verbiage on both sides. But in this one respect it does
> seem rather directly opposed to the "maximal reuse" goal.)
You can't really claim that BSD has too much ego when Linus (a.k.a.
"Mr. Humble") is getting his mug on every glossy computer rag in town :-)
-- Jason R. Thorpe <email@example.com>