Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 12th Nov 2008 09:39 UTC, submitted by Reyk
Permalink for comment 337068
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/20/13 6:17 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-03-25
It's not "just because they don't like the GNUGPL."
From a OpenBSD misc@ mailing list post at http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=112589526510808&w=2 Theo responded to a post about OpenCVS as follows:
> the OpenCVS effort or not, however the off-list reaction seems to be
> that the primary interest of the OpenCVS project is in re-licensing.
That is not the primary goal at all. Some people who really have nothing to do with us, and know zero about where we are going, are saying that. And they are wrong.
> In
> this case perhaps there wont be a lot of synergy between the projects.
That said, we have no interest in furthering GPL codebases. Not just because of the licenses, but also because of the obvious bloat that always happens with these codebases designed to "work on every stupid variation of system even written in the past".
And later on in http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=112589736230624&w=2
When it is done, OpenCVS will run fine on other systems.
Like OpenSSH.
Without the boatloats of bloat that is common in GNU-style projects.