Subject: Re: Sleepycat Software DB 2.x library licensing vs. NetBSD
To: NetBSD-current Discussion List <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: John F. Woods <email@example.com>
Date: 09/18/1998 08:14:24
> > That has allowed various companies to build propriety solutions around
> > NetBSD.
> ... 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.
It means that companies have to put a whole lot of work making ready what
was claimed to be an off-the-shelf solution, either licensing negotiations
(nothing, no matter how obvious, is straightforward and quick for a
corporate lawyer) or engineering (especially since using the 2.x interface
means the 1.x code isn't just a drop-in replacement).
Worse, if you have one such package in NetBSD, you start getting pressure
for another, and another, and another, and soon people wanting to ship
proprietary versions are nickled and dimed to death with licensing
restrictions. That way lies OSF.