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 was wrong..
(to my memory).
I recall he said that as it would be grandfathered into freeBSD,
(because we had 1.x already) and
that anyone running their software under freeBSD could do so
without added licencing, because it was already present on the
platform.
--
__--_|\ Julian Elischer
/ \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
( OZ ) World tour 2000
---> X_.---._/ presently in: Perth
v
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
- db 1.85 --> 2.x or 3.x? Brad Knowles
- Re: db 1.85 --> 2.x or 3.x? Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: db 1.85 --> 2.x or 3.x? Garrett Wollman
- Re: db 1.85 --> 2.x or 3.x? Forrest Aldrich
- Re: db 1.85 --> 2.x or 3.x? Peter Wemm
- Re: db 1.85 --> 2.x or 3.x? Dan Nelson
- Re: db 1.85 --> 2.x or 3.x? Brad Knowles
- Re: db 1.85 --> 2.x or 3.... Julian Elischer
- Re: db 1.85 --> 2.x o... Thomas David Rivers
- Re: db 1.85 --> 2.x o... Garrett Wollman
- Re: db 1.85 --> 2.x o... Forrest Aldrich
- Re: db 1.85 --> 2.x o... Julian Elischer
- Re: db 1.85 --> 2.x or 3.... Jordan K. Hubbard
- Re: db 1.85 --> 2.x o... Brad Knowles
- Re: db 1.85 --> 2.x or 3.x? Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: db 1.85 --> 2.x or 3.x? Brad Knowles
- Re: db 1.85 --> 2.x or 3.x? Nate Williams
- Re: db 1.85 --> 2.x or 3.x? David Scheidt
