tech-userlevel archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: Replacing gkermit with ekermit

Alan Barrett <> writes:

> I would like to remove gkermit (GPLv2) and add a BSD-licenced kermit
> implementation such as E-Kermit (very small, see
> <>) or C-Kermit (much larger, see
> <>).  Read on for details.

I had no idea gkermit was in base :-)

You mention "licensing concerns" about GPL code in /rescue.   Presumably
that's about the combined binary which can then only be distributed
under the GPL, or the problem where the BSD advertising clause and the
GPL are incompatible so that the crunched binary cannot be distributed
at all?   Regardless, I agree that it's better to use a simple
BSD-licensed version, as long as it works ok.

I don't see any justification for a more complex implementation; the use
case Thor provided seems like the one that justifies base system
inclusion.  Using NetBSD to fix or deal with some embedded device can be
done with pkgsrc.

So, all in all your proposal sounds reasonable and I think you should do

Attachment: pgpkhTlQhH2bZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index