At 01:43 PM 7/13/02 -0700, Mike Noyes wrote: >On Sat, 2002-07-13 at 06:53, Mike Noyes wrote: > > On Fri, 2002-07-12 at 22:55, George Georgalis wrote: > > > Is Bering GNU? > > > > George, > > Yes. > >Clarification: >Bering is licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL), and would >be described by FSF people as GPL-covered software. It is not a GNU >program, or GNU software. Bering has not been contributed to the FSF.
Mike -- I stayed out of this morass up to now mainly because you and the other LEAF folks have responded so well to it. But your message above (and some of the others, at least implicitly) reads to me like it is fuzzing up one detail. Am I mistaken, or doesn't Bering (and Dachstein, and perhaps the other variants) use some components with idiosyncratic licenses that don't meet the standards (e.g, the DFSG or OSG criteria) for either free or Open Source licensing ? I'm thinking in particular of the DJB stuff (dnscache, tinydns) and one of the intrusion detection packages. I also recall that there used to be issues with DoC module code, though I believe current DoC support uses OSG-compliant licensing. As I recall -- though I am no more expert in reading and interpreting licenses than any of us -- an overall distribution can be GPL'd but include some components that themselves are under different licenses (not ANY other license, but SOME other licenses). Does that distinction not apply to these packages (and maybe others)? -- -----------------------------------------------"Never tell me the odds!"-------------- Ray Olszewski -- Han Solo Palo Alto, California, USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
