Paul Robinson writes:
> On Sat, Jun 28, 2003 at 02:57:10PM +0930, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
>
> > I note that most of the discussion on this topic was by people who
> > are not central to the FreeBSD project.

>
> That's because the people central to the project have better things to
> do with their time than look at what the actual effort is to remove
> GPL code `from the base of FreeBSD. For those of us that looked the
> answer was "not much". Sorry if you think that's a useless answer, but
> personally I found it quite revealing.


Care to submit patches?

> > As you know, few people are as zealous as you are about wanting to
> > rid the project of GPL'd code.

>
> That's not the issue. As far as I, and a hefty percentage of the rest
> of the user base are concerned, BSD is about choice, not political
> ideals. I should have the choice of running a completely non-GPL
> BSD. I can do that - I can run Open, but I'd much rather run FreeBSD,
> particularly when the effort is as small as we've identified it really
> is.


Actually, you have the choice to change the code. The rest is at the whim
of the developers doing the work.

> > We've said it before: provide us with a good replacement and we'll
> > consider it seriously. Go ahead. I would *really* like to see a
> > replacement for gdb, for example.

>
> There are at most half a dozen apps that require the retention of
> the current GPL implementation. The rest can either be rm'ed (nobody
> uses them), replaced with BSD licensed versions, or moved out to
> ports. Awk can be moved to non-GPL just by MFC'ing a change already
> in -CURRENT. The effort to do all this is relatively small. I'd do
> it, you wouldn't notice, but I don't (as you know) have any ability
> to make those changes. But why the hostility towards doing it? I
> know this has the whiff of a bikeshed about it, but to me it makes
> sense. Perhaps I'm missing something...


We are not going to remove POSIX-mandated stuff, which means we can't
just "rm" stuff.

As for the rest of it, folks have their own priorities. Speed/efficiency
is one of them, and folks tend to go for that over licensing zealotry.
If a BSD-licensed app is a drop-in replacement for a GPL one (in a
practical way), then of course folks will be interested in using it.
Until then, the GPL/BSDL issue is NOT the trump card.

> > Most people in the FreeBSD project don't see things quite like that.

>
> Agreed, they don't. I don't. But when a BSD can be made GPL-clean with
> the exception of a compiler and debugger, and others are already doing
> so, I don't see what the reasons are for retaining GPL code when it
> makes sense for as much of the base to be BSD, as is possible....


As an exercise, I replaced our man(1) with OpenBSD's. It fell very
short in the features that our current man has. If you want to do
something useful, you may want to fix that.

M
--
Mark Murray
iumop ap!sdn w,I idlaH
_______________________________________________
freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-chat-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"