On Monday 28 October 2002 09:24, Alan Shutko wrote: > Toni Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > the DFSG demands that the license must allow free redistribution > > and use, ignorant of any specific circumstances. That's imho > > covered by clause 6 of the rules. > > It seems that this new clause makes the license similar to the GPL. > You can redistribute BDB alone however you want. If you are > redistributing it with an application, the app has to be open > source.
I just took the time to actually read the website the initial poster pointed at. Alan, you are correct this reads a lot like the GPL and for most companies will have a similar impact (usually none). Bennett, this basically says if you give someone this program you have to give them the source. If you are distributing a program within a company this is not a problem and I do not see why they even bother noting it on their page. If you give XYZ program to your NOC in say the Netherlands they should not need the source but if they ask for it there is likely to be little problem with getting them access to it. Remember, you can create a derived work from a GPL program and give it to every person in your company they are the ONLY people who have the right to ask for source code. The GPL only gives rights people who have possession of a binary.
