On Tue, May 02, 2000 at 08:52:11PM -0400, Garance A Drosihn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If this is an issue for some nntp software, perhaps that port (the
freebsd 'port collection' port...) should build and use the newer
version of db? Would that help whatever issue got you interested
in this?
Then, with the problems associated with the Sleepycat license, is
there some other alternative to this particular DB product? Surely
ours is not the only area that has experienced frustration with this
point. What other DB-like projects are out there, etc.
_F
To Unsubscribe: send mail to
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
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
On Tue, 02 May 2000 17:14:31 +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:
Sleepycats license is not FreeBSD compatible :-/
I don't understand. Reading
http://www.sleepycat.com/license.net, it seems to me that FreeBSD
meets all the necessary requirements. Can someone who understands the
details
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.
Ahh, okay. Now I think I understand the licensing issue.
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Forrest Aldrich writes:
I've been curious about this. Would someone clarify what in this
license prevents FreeBSD from including it, at some level?
People wouldn't be able to use FreeBSD without giving away their
source. /etc/passwd is stored in a db file for
Sleepycats license is not FreeBSD compatible :-/
I don't understand. Reading
http://www.sleepycat.com/license.net, it seems to me that FreeBSD
meets all the necessary requirements. Can someone who understands
the details of the licensing issues either explain the situation to
In the last episode (May 02), Forrest Aldrich said:
I've been curious about this. Would someone clarify what in this
license prevents FreeBSD from including it, at some level?
Basically, the part that says
If you redistribute your application outside of your site and your
source code is
Forrest Aldrich wrote:
I've been curious about this. Would someone clarify what in this
license prevents FreeBSD from including it, at some level?
The problem is that we export the DB API from libc, and if anything uses
the DB interface for a local application they'd be subject to the license
I've been curious about this. Would someone clarify what in this
license prevents FreeBSD from including it, at some level?
_F
Sleepycat Software Product Licensing
Berkeley DB is an Open Sourcetm product, and complete source code is available from
our Web site.
If you build an
On Tue, 02 May 2000 13:16:03 +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Sleepycats license is not FreeBSD compatible :-/
Even worse, the 2.x file format is not FreeBSD compatible. Having
already had one flag day between 1.x and 2.x (the FreeBSD versions)
when the installed base was
In message v0422080ab53464df3042@[195.238.1.121], Brad Knowles writes:
Folks,
A thread on news.software.nntp got me checking into this, and now
I've gotten very curious. From what I can determine, it looks like
what is integrated into FreeBSD is Berkeley db 1.85 (in
/usr/src/libc/db),
Folks,
A thread on news.software.nntp got me checking into this, and now
I've gotten very curious. From what I can determine, it looks like
what is integrated into FreeBSD is Berkeley db 1.85 (in
/usr/src/libc/db), although there is a port for 2.7.7 in
/usr/ports/databases/db.
On Tue, 2 May 2000, Brad Knowles wrote:
At 1:16 PM +0200 2000/5/2, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Sleepycats license is not FreeBSD compatible :-/
I don't understand. Reading
http://www.sleepycat.com/license.net, it seems to me that FreeBSD
meets all the necessary requirements.
On Tue, 2 May 2000 12:32:20 -0400 (EDT), Thomas David Rivers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
This is where the license issues are...
Keith offered to make a one-time lobotomy of the DB 2.x code to trim
it down to just the 1.85 API, with a standard Berkeley-style license.
We discussed this for a
Does anyone know if this has been brought up with the folks at
Sleepycat to see if we could get a modification/clarification of this
point, so that as long as FreeBSD satisfies the necessary
requirements that this point of the license doesn't then recurse upon
people who might be
At 3:12 PM -0700 2000/5/2, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
Yes, this was brought up by the sleepycat people themselves over a
year ago and was part of a long discussion thread involving Keith
Bostic and a host of FreeBSD developers. We were unable to reach such
an agreement or get any such
At 1:05 PM +0200 5/2/00, Brad Knowles wrote:
A thread on news.software.nntp got me checking into this,
and now I've gotten very curious. From what I can determine, it
looks like what is integrated into FreeBSD is Berkeley db 1.85
(in /usr/src/libc/db), although there is a port for 2.7.7
One of the things to consider is the number of places db is used in
FreeBSD
code. Any bugs in db can manifest in any of these:
contrib/bind
contrib/global
contrib/nvi
contrib/perl5
contrib/sendmail
crypto/kerberosIV
crypto/heimdal
lib/libc/gen/devname.c
lib/libc/gen/getcap.c
In servalan.mailinglist.fbsd-current Brad Knowles writes:
Besides, don't we use gcc as the system-standard compiler, and
doesn't this likewise infect everything compiled on FreeBSD with the
GPL?
No, because none of the gcc code appears in the resulting binary. The
binary does include
On Tue, May 02, 2000 at 10:07:25PM -0400, Danny J. Zerkel wrote:
pr/9350 is an example of db bugs effecting vi.
(Would someone PLEASE apply the simple patch and close the damn PR!)
Ok. I've applied to my local sources. If it passes my next makeworld
and doesn't crash things on me, I'll
At 1:16 PM +0200 2000/5/2, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Sleepycats license is not FreeBSD compatible :-/
I don't understand. Reading
http://www.sleepycat.com/license.net, it seems to me that FreeBSD
meets all the necessary requirements. Can someone who understands
the details of the
23 matches
Mail list logo
