Re: Berkeley DB license terms (was Re: Proposal...)

> On Mon, 15 May 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > > > Seems this changes our license more toward GPL. I don't think that is
> > > > going to be supportable by the group. I doubt we are willing to modify
> > > > our license in order to use the Sleepycat DB code.
> > >
> > > I don't know ... I read this as totally anti-GPL ... "you are more then
> > > welcome to distribute binary only, but then you have to pay us for use of
> > > our libraries" ...
> > >
> > > ... the only aspect that would worry me is if SleepCat were to change
> > > their license and make it more restrictive ...
> >
> > But it ties the hands of binary-only distributors, or pay them. Not a
> > good choice.
>
> Woah here ... didn't Michael state that binary-only was okay, as long as
> the source *was* available on the 'Net? ie. Enhydra can distribute their
> binaries, as long as sources were still available on postgresql.org?

But that limits companies from distributing binary-only versions where
they don't want to give out the source.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026