Subject: Re: Sleepycat Software DB 2.x library licensing vs. NetBSD
To: Ken Hornstein <email@example.com>
From: Charles M. Hannum <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/17/1998 17:32:20
> 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.