Re: groff alternative?

On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 05:47:26AM +0000, Harti Brandt wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, David O'Brien wrote:
> 
> DO>On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 06:24:07PM +0200, Emanuel Strobl wrote:
> DO>> today I read a news article (http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/60600) 
> DO>> about OpenSolaris beeing released, but is there also the groff alternative 
> DO>> included?
> DO>> I'd love to see a lean replacment for our current gnu version.
> DO>
> DO>Before everyone gets all happy thinking we can incorporate all kinds of
> DO>bits from Open Solaris - one should read the license agrement first.
> DO>
> DO>    COMMON DEVELOPMENT AND DISTRIBUTION LICENSE Version 1.0
> DO>    ..
> DO>    3.1. Availability of Source Code.
> DO>    Any Covered Software that You distribute or otherwise make available
> DO>    in Executable form must also be made available in Source Code form
> DO>    and that Source Code form must be distributed only under the terms of
> DO>    this License. 
> DO>
> DO>this puts the CDDL1.0 in the same boat as GPL'ed code from a BSD stand
> DO>point.
> 
> I think that's not entirely correct.
..
> In this case you don't need to distribute the pieces 
> that are covered by the other license.
..
> You don't need to distribute the new file 
> with that function. Of course that new file will not be CDDL covered.

I never said CDDL was viral.  It is like the GPL (LGPL if you like) in
that you must deliver the source with the binary.  For key userland
pieces or kernel subsystems this goes against our philosophy.  For
complete utilities, such as groff, CDDL is >< better than GPL as the end
result is the 99.9% same.

-- 
-- David  (obrien_at_FreeBSD.org)