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: 09/19/1998 00:21:43
[ On Fri, September 18, 1998 at 08:14:24 (-0400), John F. Woods wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: Sleepycat Software DB 2.x library licensing vs. NetBSD
> 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).
Yeah yeah yeah. That's the cost of doing business if you're into
building proprietary software. That's one of the reasons I don't like
proprietary software too.
> 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.
I don't think that analogy means anything. Presumably the direction this
kind of action would take would be more towards the FSF than the OSF.
Besides, just who do the NetBSD volunteers want to support anyway? More
big corporate entities creating proprietary software, or people like
themselves who are interested in keeping source code open and free?
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>