Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 12:32:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> To: blk@skynet.be, julian@elischer.org Cc: dnelson@emsphone.com, forrie@navipath.com, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, phk@critter.freebsd.dk Subject: Re: db 1.85 --> 2.x or 3.x? Message-ID: <200005021632.MAA26191@lakes.dignus.com> In-Reply-To: <390EFFC5.52BFA1D7@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Brad Knowles wrote: > > > > At 10:00 AM -0500 2000/5/2, Dan Nelson wrote: > > > > > .. means that a user that wanted to use FreeBSD in a commercial > > > application would not be able to simply sell his product; he would have > > > to get a license from Sleepycat. > > > > I asked the Keith about this and he said it was wrong.. > (to my memory). > > I recall he said that as it would be grandfathered into freeBSD, > (because we had 1.x already) and > that anyone running their software under freeBSD could do so > without added licencing, because it was already present on the > platform. Ah - but that's "running under FreeBSD" - what about taking the FreeBSD source and using it in a different product... Just what does "running under FreeBSD" mean, anyway? If I sell a black box and use FreeBSD as the internal OS, but don't call it FreeBSD - is it "running under FreeBSD?" What if, for example, what if a product came together that was the Linux kernel with the FreeBSD command set? Is that "running under FreeBSD?" Would you be forced to send out your complete sources in that event? This is where the license issues are... - Dave Rivers - To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200005021632.MAA26191>