Subject: Re: Sleepycat Software DB 2.x library licensing vs. NetBSD
To: Greg Hudson <email@example.com>
From: Michael Graff <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/17/1998 12:56:20
Greg Hudson <email@example.com> writes:
> db lives in libc. The Sleepycat license is, unless I'm really
> confused about it, totally unacceptable for the NetBSD libc given the
> priorities of the project. There's a difference between shipping
> GPL'd programs and shipping an infected library.
Has anyone talked to them about getting some sort of special
permission to include it within the libc?
Also, would a private interface to 2.x be acceptable, or do we want to
provide 2.x to users as well?