Ronald Khoo wrote:

> >> N cryptosrc-us/crypto-us/dist/krb5/src/util/db2/Makefile.in
> 
> > Is this berkeley DB2 (I can't look :-). If so, do we have licensing
> > issues to worry about?
> 
> That's an interesting question.  What's the appropriate list to
> ask this kind of question on ?  I've a similar one.  /usr/lib/libstdc++*
> is GPL'd, which is pretty much similar licensing conditions as the
> sleepycat db2 one.

I think it's as simple as "If something is GPL'd, we can use it".  I'm
not sure of the mechanics of this, but I accept it as gospel.

The SleepyCat licence page says:

        If you redistribute your application outside of your site and
        your source code is not freely available and redistributable by
        others, then you require a commercial license from Sleepycat
        Software. Contact us for commercial licensing terms and pricing.

Now, that doesn't sound as bad as I recall - I thought there were words
like "can't be sold for profit"...  Has anyone been officially in
contact with SleepyCat to see if we can ship db2?

> So, if NetBSD's acceptability rules for non-gratis-license libraries say
> that they can't be in the base distribution, then libstdc++ 
> needs to be kicked out too.  That would make it rather
> difficult to build groff from the base unless we revert to a
> very much older toolchain.  Perhaps that question wants to asked
> on tech-toolchain (which I'm not on)?

I've moved it to current-users - seems like the right place.

Simon.