Subject: Re: Sleepycat Software DB 2.x library licensing vs. NetBSD
To: Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU>
From: Ken Hornstein <>
List: current-users
Date: 09/17/1998 16:48:03
>> Has anyone talked to them about getting some sort of special
>> permission to include it within the libc?
>They can't grant us "special permission" since our libc needs to be
>freely redistributable.

Keith Bostic once offered on the kerberos mailing list an essentially
Berkeley-style license terms to the krb5 folks, with the condition that
the license only applied to the use of DB2 inside of krb5.

In other words, vendors could use DB2 inside of krb5 and it would be
free for them.  They couldn't take that DB2 outside of krb5 and use it
for other things.  Nobody from MIT replied to him, so I don't know if
it was unacceptable or just people being lame.  This seems like it
might be okay for NetBSD, but maybe it wouldn't; I'm not sure.

Keith Bostic seems like a reasonable fellow; could we at least _ASK_
him first?  The worst thing he could do would be tell us to go to hell,
and we'd be no worse off than before.