4 ms·
That's not likely to happen for both licensing and technical reasons. CDDL is not an acceptable license. And OpenBSD also has no extant framework for loadable k
by notaplumber 8y ago
That's not likely to happen for both licensing and technical reasons. CDDL is not an acceptable license. And OpenBSD also has no extant framework for loadable kernel modules, nor any desire to add one (increasing attack surface).
- ohithereyou 8y agoIn fact, they recently removed loadable kernel support. OpenBSD 5.6 is the last release to support this. Of course, you don't need loadable kernel module support to extend the OpenBSD kernel.
- meruru 8y agoI understand the CDDL is not GPL-compatible, but why is it not acceptable for OpenBSD?
- int_19h 8y agoIt's still copyleft, so including it into the base system would require licensing those parts as CDDL, so the system as a whole would no longer be BSD-licensed.
- AndrewDavis 8y agoOnly the files pulled in would fall under the cddl. The cddl is unlike the GPL in that it is file based copyleft. It doesn't force any other part it is combined with to be any license. Ie you could combine it with anything that is ISC or BSD licensed without issues.
- int_19h 8y agoWhat files wouldn't be pulled in in an implementation that doesn't support dynamically loaded kernel modules? But anyway, even one file is enough. The aggregate would no longer be clean BSDL.