by redmail.netbsd.org with SMTP; 20 Feb 1999 04:15:11 -0000
	by duhnet.net (8.9.1/8.9.1/3.0.1) with ESMTP id XAA14403Fri, 19 Feb 1999 23:18:33 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 23:18:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Todd Vierling <tv@pobox.com>
To: davidw@debian.org
cc: netbsd-advocacy@NetBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: NetBSD/Linux 'distribution'
In-Reply-To: <19990219211709.A25512@debian.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.05.9902192311400.13359-100000@duhnet.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, David Welton wrote:

: Someone brought up the idea of using most of the current Debian
: userland tools on top of a BSD kernel, which of course sparked
: discussions about which one might be most appropriate (at this point,
: I should note that no one has actually *done* anything about this, and
: I sort of doubt it will ever be more than speculation).

<g>

Of course, NetBSD supports _almost_-complete Linux syscall emulation.  As a
point of semantics, it would best be called `Debian GNU/NetBSD' - as there
would be no Linux kernel, it's Not Linux.

: whether we might actually get help, or if people would generally behave
: neutrally.

>From what I have personally seen of the user base, you're probably likely to
get more apathy than anything.  Sort of the `it ain't broke, don't fix it'
attitude.

:  I (we) know that the BSD community in general prefers that license, and
: of course, whatever BSD kernel and software they use, so this isn't the
: question at hand, but rather, how might we be looked upon for 'taking'
: this work and using it in our own way?

NetBSD's basic licensing principle is `do what you want as long as the
author(s) get documented credit'.  Do it, if you want, and even solicit help
if you desire.

You probably won't be able to apply a GPL license to the existing NetBSD
kernel code; however, code licensed in its existing form is free for your
absorption.
 
-- 
-- Todd Vierling (Personal tv@pobox.com; Bus. todd_vierling@xn.xerox.com)