Subject: Re: Sleepycat Software DB 2.x library licensing vs. NetBSD
To: NetBSD-current Discussion List <email@example.com>
From: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/19/1998 09:10:52
In message <m0zKFjS-0009MEC@most.weird.com>, Greg A. Woods writes:
>Perhaps further clarification should be made to that document to define
>the term "free", esp. if it does not mean, in part, "freely available,
>freely redistributable, and freely modifiable source code".
I think the key is that the NetBSD folks believe that *their* source should
be freely redistributable and modifiable. Not necessarily that anyone
else's derviations need be.