> 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.

Such an agreement would be pointless.  DB2 does not have any features
that are particularly critical for a Kerberos server.  The point of
including DB2 would be for applications to use it.

> 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.

We *did* ask Keith.  (What the Hell do you people think we do,
anyway?)  There is nothing he can to do accomodate us and still meet
his own licensing goals.