Subject: Re: Sleepycat Software DB 2.x library licensing vs. NetBSD
To: NetBSD-current Discussion List <email@example.com>
From: Chris G. Demetriou <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/17/1998 18:48:00
email@example.com (Greg A. Woods) writes:
> Neither restrict
> redistribution unless one tries to do such distribution in a non-open
> fashion. I.e. yes they do stifle proprietary software distribution, but
> except for the fact that The NetBSD Foundation would prefer to avoid
> limiting their users from creating proprietary software, there is no
> other direct conflict.
It's stronger than that. Allowing proprietary distribution,
especially of those programs using the 'core' system libraries and
the kernel, is one of the more significant goals of the project, and
has been since day one.
The places that we've deviated from that are places where there's no
credible alternative. The libraries that we include that deviate from
that policy are used only by programs which suffer similarly, and are
included only when they are necessary or make those programs work
That has allowed various companies to build propriety solutions around
NetBSD. I think that, overall, that has actually benefitted the
project in a variety of ways.
Chris Demetriou - firstname.lastname@example.org - http://www.netbsd.org/People/Pages/cgd.html
Disclaimer: Not speaking for NetBSD, just expressing my own opinion.
Plug: Get your official NetBSD-1.3.2 CDROM set today! http://www.netbsd.com/