Subject: Re: Sleepycat Software DB 2.x library licensing vs. NetBSD
To: NetBSD-current Discussion List <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Greg A. Woods <email@example.com>
Date: 09/17/1998 22:17:41
[ On , September 17, 1998 at 18:48:00 (-0700), Chris G. Demetriou wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: Sleepycat Software DB 2.x library licensing vs. NetBSD
> 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.
Perhaps this statement should be made a whole lot stronger on the NetBSD
Goals WWW page....
Although I've sort of known that myself, I do not get that impression
from reading the stated goals, which I did re-read to confirm my
understanding and impression before I started this thread.
> 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
> significantly better.
I agree that is true for GNU LGPL protected libraries....
> That has allowed various companies to build propriety solutions around
... however I fail to see how the DB 2.x copyright licensing
restrictions would impede the derivation of proprietary products from
NetBSD since it is no doubt trivial to obtain commercial licensing for
DB 2.x that would forgo the need for a vendor to distribute source code
to their proprietary solution.
(this option is usually not possible for GNU LGPL'ed libraries)
> I think that, overall, that has actually benefitted the
> project in a variety of ways.
I don't doubt that one bit! ;-)
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <firstname.lastname@example.org> <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <email@example.com>; Secrets of the Weird <firstname.lastname@example.org>