Thrumbar Pathfinder wrote: > Could you be more specific on what part of the license is so > unfriendly????? > > thrum...@worldnet.att.net
For one, it's worse even than the GPL. Remember, this is in libc, it would effectively require publication of sources to all binaries linked against libc.. (This is probably and over generalization, and it's a while since I read it, so read it for yourself and don't take my word for it) It's in libc because the core of the password database routines are written around DB1.x. We can't use dlopen() since getpwxxx() has to work in static binaries. Also, old binaries can't read the new /etc/pwd.db etc and vice versa as the format has changed. I am no longer sure why there was a problem with shipping both versions, but I seem to recall there was some sort of conflict or risk of conflict with having a version in libc and a seperate -ldb library. Don't get me wrong, Keith Bostic has put a lot of effort into it and I wish him well in trying to get a return on his investment, but the way he's chosen to do that has pretty much ruled it out for us using or supplying it in the base OS. > On Thu, 13 May 1999 16:50:17 -0400 (EDT), you wrote: > > ><<On Thu, 13 May 1999 16:47:20 -0400, Dan Moschuk <d...@trinsec.com> = > said: > > > >> Out of curiosity, is there a reason we are still using Berkeley DB = > v1.85 as > >> apposed to v2? =20 > > > >Yes. v2 has an unfriendly license. > > > >-GAWollman Cheers, -Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
