On Monday 14 January 2008 19:35:10 Damian Lajos Brasher wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 18:01 +0000, Hugo Mills wrote:
> > > How is it that the BSD licence model can cope with the Sun CDDL
> > > licence?
> >
> > Because the GPL forbids additional restrictions over and above
> > those listed in the GPL. BSD, however, basically says "do whatever you
> > want with this" -- which means that it's pretty much compatible with
> > any license at all (i.e. BSD-licensed material may be distributed as
> > source or binary as a part of a larger or derived work licensed under
> > any other license).
>
> Ah right, the 'source or binary' was the missing piece for me, ZFS,
> therefore, can be packaged with any complete BSD based operating system
> distribution in binary form without potential licence conflicts.
I'm pretty certain that you can mix the source code as well.
> So is
> it true that, say, FreeBSD, I have never tried it and probably won't in
> the near future, contains many binary only packages supplied by various
> vendors like Sun?
OpenBSD is even more against binary only packages than Linux is
(painting both projects with very broad brush strokes). Theo de Raadt
is very vocally against binary blobs, possibly in part because
they always get written for Linux rather than OpenBSD but mostly
because he does want to provide a distribution that is as open
as possible. Blobs were the theme of OpenBSD 3.9 song:
http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#39
--
Be seeing you, http://www.glendale.org.uk
Sam. Mail/IM (Jabber): sam@???
