On Tue, 6 Jul 1999, Alex Zepeda wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Jun 1999, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> 
> > And the fact that the fs we were using was not available under a
> > NetBSD-compatable license, so it'd never make it in the tree. Though we
> > never asked the author if he'd release it under a different license. :-)
> 
> Hmm.  Has anyone taken a look at the Darwin HFS/HFS+ code?  It seems to me
> that it wold probably be easier to port code from a BSD derived kernel,
> plus the APSL is a bit less virulent than the GPL..

Well, the real question is if the Darwin hfs/hfs+ is sufficiently non
virulent to go in the tree. :-) It would probably be a great starting
point...

Last I looked at the APSL, it was close enough to GPL to not get things in
the tree.

Take care,

Bill