>[ 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.
>
>Maybe.
>
>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

DB 1.X has bugs that can kill things like Sendmail.  I believe Sun has
already received a variant license for DB2 for use with their shipped
Sendmail. I do not know if any money was involved.

>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
>the amateurs....)

This all assumes that your product ships with a compiler, the user wishes
to place the computer on an internet network, you have a transport tool
that can get through any firewalls without user intervention, etc., etc.
The alternative is tech-support hell.

Personally, I'm not interested in "sneaking through some loophole" to not
pay Keith if his desire is to be payed for his work.  Considering the fact
that he payed several contractors to deliver portions of DB2, I think he
certainly has the right to recoup his costs and benefit from his work.

--
Justin