Subject: Re: More licensing flames...
To: NetBSD-current Discussion List <email@example.com>
From: Greg A. Woods <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/22/1998 01:53:39
[ On Tue, September 22, 1998 at 00:40:35 (-0500), email@example.com wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: More licensing flames...
> 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?
The Sleepycat copyright license on their DB-2.x goes one step further
and contains terms that some might describe as "viral" -- i.e. they
attempt to force people who distribute software linked against DB-2.x to
also be freely re-distributable in source form. I.e. the DB-2.x
copyright license is very much more like the GNU LGPL than the GPL.
Note that "file" was only included in the 4.4BSD releases in the
"contrib" sub-directory. I was happy to see it moved into "usr.bin" in
NetBSD, but somewhat surprised at the same time. Perhaps it only made
the grade because it didn't use the actual GNU GPL and there was no
other sibling to /usr/src/gnu for creatures like it.
Or maybe nobody else noticed before now.... ;-)
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <firstname.lastname@example.org> <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <email@example.com>; Secrets of the Weird <firstname.lastname@example.org>