>> GPLing them will actually make it more difficult for NetBSD to
>> support them (except, possibly, as LKMs), as we'd then have to
>> reimplement truly free (or I should say, more nearly truly free)

(Actually, I shouldn't say either; my bias is showing.  I should say
"non-free in different ways", though a truly free version would
arguably be even better.)

>> versions of them.  (We don't accept GPLed code in the kernel.)

> There is no reason we can not use gnu/sys to do this in the way we
> are currently for softupdates.  Personally I find license ideology
> getting in the way of features idiotic.

It's not a question of ideology, unless you call adhering to license
terms "ideology".  Go read the GPL - if we put any GPLed code in the
kernel, we either must (a) not distribute kernels or (b) GPL the rest
of the kernel.  (a) would kill NetBSD stone cold dead, as it would mean
no kernels in install sets; (b) would mean rewriting almost all of the
existing code, since most of it travels under licenses incompatible
with doing that.

The only alternative is for it to be very optional, and that could be
done, though as someone suggested, it would probably be a good idea -
heck, it might even be necessary to show due diligence - to warn people
who use it that the resulting kernels cannot be distributed to
*anyone*, not even, as I read it, quantity-one to your neighbor down
the street.

I suppose you could legitimately call it a question of ideology, on the
part of the person who GPLed the code in the first place, for putting
spreading the GPL religion ahead of allowing the code to actually be
useful.  But from that point of view, it's not NetBSD folk you should
be squawking at.

As for softupdates, if the license were as viral as the GPL, yes,
kernels with softupdate code in them would be completely
non-redistributable.  I've just read the license for
sys/ufs/ffs/softdep.h in my -current sup tree (this and a stub .c file
with a very permissive license are the only softdep files readily
apparent), and it doesn't look viral in this sense; it says of the rest
of the source only that it "must be freely redistributable under
reasonable conditions".

					der Mouse

			       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
		     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B