Subject: Re: Sleepycat Software DB 2.x library licensing vs. NetBSD
To: NetBSD-current Discussion List <email@example.com>
From: Paul Wain <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/18/1998 22:13:25
Which reminds me :) Dont forget that there are those of us out there that do
take this stuff and package it up in specific formats, whilst at the same time
feeding things back (e.g. NCI creating our OS, feeding back (with DEC) lots of
-arm32 compiler changes and stuff and some i386 bug fixes - and partially paying
for a portmaster to do NetBSD stuff full time - and a hi to cgd too :). This
means that that although we are not directly paying we are still contributing.
Thus, the "without encumberment" thing is really useful. 
 You see it cuts both ways. Although companies dont have to pay to get the
code, they do feel that they should contribute back to make the thing better for
everyone else (i.e. it cuts both ways - the end 'free' user gets better code as
a result of the proprietry solutions doing things like bug fixes etc.) I dont
really know how to express it better other thant keeping things free provides
better exposure, why do you think so many of us prefer the *BSD efforts to those
that are GPLed...
 No I'm not typing this as an expression of my employer's beliefs - yes I
know I used terms like 'our' but that was merely to prevent the English from
being clumsy. These are just my opinions based upon the experiences I have been
through both at work or at home (any damages resulting from these opinions
[ On Fri, September 18, 1998 at 10:47:16 (-0400), Todd Vierling wrote: ]
> > Subject: Re: Sleepycat Software DB 2.x library licensing vs. NetBSD
> > On Thu, 17 Sep 1998, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> > : > That has allowed various companies to build propriety solutions around
> > : > NetBSD.
> > Insert: "without cost."