for commercial sponsors of FreeBSD, it has zero bearing on FreeBSD itself. If
FreeBSD appears
as a subsidiary of some commercial company (say Juniper) i am not sure this
will be good
I think any project that size is actually a subsidiary and must be.
I just don't like that it isn't stated openly! It is nothing wrong, unless
one can feed using zero point energy, everyone needs money to stay alive.
Wouldn't it be smarter to openly say "Juniper request as to get rid o GPL
as soon as we can because they are fed up with this shit and law mess."
instead of personal attacks, messing with my (and others) sentences and
posting evident lies just to "explain" the decision.
It is a difference between honest people and fools.
i already proposed (but not publically) to turn FreeBSD into commercial
system.
REALLY i would not see a problem to pay say 100$ per server licence.
There is nothing to prevent giving source with system. Non-Free software
doesn't have to be binary only.
For paying this i would like FreeBSD to be maintained with quality and
performance being the only reason, not politics.
Every "trendy" or otherwise requested feature could be added separately or
even charged separately, as long as it doesn't have any effects on base
system. ZFS being example.
Nothing against Juniper (the make truly good working hardware), but if
they enforce decision because of their personal likes then it must be
stopped.
GPLv3 based C compiler does not prevent making closed source software like
JunOS for example.
It is only "i hate GNU" type decision.
I hate too, and in spite of this am against removing gcc and replacing it
with much worse product.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
