On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 08:59:09AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > It's my understanding that hurd for example doesn't have this kind of > > exception (and I suspect never will, given the project's foundation), so > > we'll never even see apache for it (the damned BSDish advertising clause > > strikes again!) > > There's no need to guess. The Hurd will certainly allow non-free > programs that don't use any Hurd libraries and confine themselves to > the normal published interfaces.
That does seem somewhat counterproductive to the FSF's goals, but I am glad to hear that considering that you seem to be making a very classic logical failing: !GPL != non-free. According to the FSF's own web pages, there are a number of perfectly acceptable pieces of software under licenses that are without a doubt free, but contain clauses which make them incompatible with the GPL. Unfortunately, you can't allow some and not others unless you did it on a purely case-by-case basis, which would be a nightmare. Thanks though, I now feel much better about the future of the Hurd. It would just royally suck to lose apache and postfix if I ever moved to the Hurd given that they're both free and quite usable. -- Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3 Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/) 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC The QuakeForge Project (http://quakeforge.net/) 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3 <Crow-> who gives a shit about US law <jim> anyone living in the US.
