Subject: Re: Sleepycat Software DB 2.x library licensing vs. NetBSD
To: NetBSD-current Discussion List <email@example.com>
From: Greg A. Woods <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/17/1998 22:54:24
[ On Thu, September 17, 1998 at 19:50:18 (-0600), Justin T. Gibbs wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: Sleepycat Software DB 2.x library licensing vs. NetBSD
> >If that's the case then it's a very strange copyright license indeed.
> Not at all. It means that a commercial user will likely pay him to
> get a different, more palatable, license on the code.
If (and that's and awfully big "if" just now!) I were to try to market
some commercial software that just so happened to work best with DB 2.x
I'd do exactly what I would have to do if that software also happened to
use a GNU LGPL'ed library: I would ship my software as a collection of
object files and I would have the installation script automatically
download an official copy of the library in question, compile it, and
then link my application against the library. (Of course I'd also
trivially obfuscate the objects and the installation process to keep out
(And, BTW, yes, I've actually seen commercial software that did almost
This is almost exactly what the FAQ on Sleepycat.com suggests, in fact
(though they imply that it could be a manual process).
I'd probably only pay for a license (assuming one was possible,
something that would not likely be the case for the average GNU LGPL'ed
library), if I either required developer support for the library, or I
was feeling generous and I really liked the folks who wrote it (and if
they would indeed be the ones to ultimately profit from my payment).
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <email@example.com> <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Secrets of the Weird <email@example.com>