diff - GNU og BSD ?
mezz7 at cox.net
Wed Feb 18 13:27:35 PST 2004
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 21:44:24 +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 02:13:36PM -0600, Jeremy Messenger wrote:
>> > Well, since we have maintain that stuff, there is a reason to worry
>> > about it.
>> Can you give me the more points on this beside BSD license is more
>> flexible? I doubt, you can give any unless it's something that is
>> connect with the kernel (ie: FS, modules and etc).
> Have you signed the FSF papers for merging back patches? Not all GPL
> software in contrib is "bad", but the FSF stuff is somewhat evil.
With the Matt's recently new move/method on GCC and Binutils, do you
still have to send the patches back to FSF? Just a last question and
 No modify in contrib and the modify made by Makefile in gnu, almost
like ports work.
>> So far in my replies, as I said and my point, if there are some tools
>> that are better than current tools in the base system, then it's good
>> reason to replace it. Which meaing if you find any better tar tool then
>> I will support the opinion of replacement.
> I fully agree. But for me having a non-FSF or even a BSDL tool is better
> than FSF stuff. Another point is having _more_ features is not necessary
> good, unless those features are useful. This is why GNU diff vs. OpenBSD
> diff should be evaluated. Another example is gzip, which is somewhat
> redundant since it doesn't use zlib. We don't have to decide now which
> tool is better, until someone give a real comparision.
>> People who want to replace the GNU diff, their reason was just BSD vs
>> GPL license, which it's no point and no good reason at all peroid. This
>> is what I will not support the opinion of replacement.
>> Anyway, I bet this topic will keep going and going on.. I will let you
>> reply above of more points if you have any, so this is my last reply.
> And this is mine. This thread was long enough.
>> bsdforums.org 's moderator, mezz.
bsdforums.org 's moderator, mezz.
More information about the Submit