Subject: Re: [Frank da Cruz : Re: Kermit and
To: Frederick Bruckman <>
From: Frank da Cruz <>
List: netbsd-advocacy
Date: 11/23/1999 13:28:28
> On Tue, 23 Nov 1999, Frank da Cruz wrote:
> > Right, this is your decision.  Personally, if I were creating some
> > kind of commercial product to sell,
> Stop right there. NetBSD is a volunteer effort, arguably more so than
> any other Free 'nix. The closest thing to commercial distributors may
> be found here: <>.
This is a ticklish topic!

> > and I wanted to include some third-party software in it, I would
> > not mind asking for permission and even paying for it if the price
> > was right.  I certainly would not feel it was my absolute right to
> > sell the work of others.  This is just common human courtesy and
> > respect.
> Looking at the prices on the above referenced page, it's not clear
> that most of the re-packagers are "profiting" from the work of others,
> or even "profiting" at all. Nonetheless, the folks listed there are
> the ones to make your pitch to--LOL.
I'm not talking about the packagers; the point of this discussion is to
find a way to put C-Kermit on these CDROMs.

I'm talking about those who receive the package or CD and then use its
contents in a product.  The question is: is it the goal of the NetBSD
Project to ensure that a company does not have to concern itself with
the licenses of each package on the NetBSD CDROM when it goes to
incorporate them into commercial products, or should it be the
end-user's responsibility to check the license for each such product
before doing so?  If I were such a company, I think I would check
anyway, wouldn't you?

As noted earlier, you make a distinction between "base NetBSD", all of
which has a consistent license, and "third-party packages", which might
have different licenses, no?  If so, doesn't that cover this case too?

- Frank