On Friday, 29 April 2005 at 17:19:07 +1000, Jonathan Gray wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 04:31:22PM +0930, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: >> On Thursday, 28 April 2005 at 17:23:22 +0100, Bruce M Simpson wrote: >>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 01:48:59AM +1000, Jonathan Gray wrote: >>>> I came across the following incorrect statement when >>>> browsing http://www.freebsd.org >>>> >>>> "FreeBSD is available free of charge and comes with full source code" >>>> >>>> Sadly I do not think this has been true for some time. >>> >>> I disagree; the wording isn't misleading. However, to address such concerns, >>> it might be better worded as "comes with full source code, and also ships >>> with some binary driver components". >> >> A more accurate statement might be: >> >> "FreeBSD is available free of charge and comes with full source >> code. In addition, many third-party drivers are available, some in >> source, others in binary-only format". >> >> The important thing is that the FreeBSD project is not withholding >> *any* source code. The only binary-only components are from other >> people who don't allow distribution of *their* source. > > If these binary only components come with FreeBSD they are part > of FreeBSD as far as most people are concerned. I suppose that depends on their intellect. How would you describe this distinction? > There are binary components with no publically available source code > in FreeBSD, so it is not full source code. For some definition of "in". Are you trying to imply that we withhold source code to base FreeBSD? Would it be a better product if we were to suppress distribution of those third party components which are available only in binary? > Additionally supporting such things hinders progress on acceptable > alternatives be they drivers with full source or use of other > vendors. How? Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:33 UTC