On Fri, 29 May 1998 04:20:21 GMT,
jak@cetlink.net (John Kelly) wrote:
> On Fri, 29 May 1998 12:17:37 +1000, matthew green <mrg@eterna.com.au>
> wrote:
> 
> >in my view, we _cannot_ ever distribute sendmail 8.9.0 with netbsd,
> 
> >1. Redistributions qualify as "freeware" or "Open Source Software" under
> >   one of the following terms:
> > 
> >   (b) Redistributions are accompanied by a copy of the Source Code or by
> >       an irrevocable offer to provide a copy of the Source Code at the
> >       cost of materials and delivery.
> 
> >the first sentence of 1. (b) is the problem to me.  "irrevocable offer
> >to provide a copy of the Source Code".  that's an *awful* long time to
> >be bound..
> 
> It also says *OR* "a copy of the source code."  So if you're already
> distributing source code anyway, like NetBSD does, then that sentence
> is harmless.

So, you're saying we should ship the sendmail 8.9 source with
(i.e. included within) the NetBSD binary distribution?

It does not seem reasonable to me if NetBSD Foundation is required to
"offer to provide a copy of the Source Code" a hundred years after the
release of whatever version of NetBSD that includes sendmail 8.9.0.
"OR" that version of NetBSD cannot be distributed in completely binary
form; at least it will have to include sendmail 8.9.0 source.

> All it means is that you can't withhold, or "hide" the source.

In its spirits it may be true, but literally, I'm not sure.  And I'd
rather be safe than sorry.

Ken