3 ms·
The maintainers of pf (bsd license) were once hosed by Apple, understandable that rms doesn't want to enable easy future gcc front end proprietary software. He
by pakled_engineer 12y ago
The maintainers of pf (bsd license) were once hosed by Apple, understandable that rms doesn't want to enable easy future gcc front end proprietary software.
Henning Brauer:
"We have no problem with them using our code but we do not appreciate that they subjected it to the Apple Public Source License. They introduce some interesting ideas such as a ref count of how many times PF has been enabled or disabled but we are unable to use their implementation. Furthermore, the Apple Public Source License introduces contract law to an environment that only relied on copyright law. This is unfortunate."
- jacobolus 12y agoI think “hosed by Apple” is an unjustified summary. More like, “the maintainers of pf released their code under a very permissive license, and then one or more of them was unhappy when someone else took their license terms at face value and used their code in strict accordance with those terms.” If what the pf maintainers really wanted was to use a GPLv2 type license, and instead they used BSD, and now are unhappy about the consequences, I can’t see how that’s Apple’s fault.
- gonzo 12y agoThis. Henning doesn't understand licensing very well.