Subject: Re: More licensing flames...
To: NetBSD-current Discussion List <email@example.com>
From: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/22/1998 00:40:35
In message <m0zLL7I-0009MWC@most.weird.com>, Greg A. Woods writes:
>So far as I know the copyright license on Ian's version of "file" has
>always been this way.
I'm just curious about this, because I'd never noticed it before, and
it really looks fairly similar to some of the terms of the Sleepycat
license agreement... Is this okay just because most programs don't
have a solid dependancy on file(1), or what?