Thomas David Rivers wrote:
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> Ah - but that's "running under FreeBSD" - what about taking
> the FreeBSD source and using it in a different product...
>
> Just what does "running under FreeBSD" mean, anyway?
>
> If I sell a black box and use FreeBSD as the internal OS, but
> don't call it FreeBSD - is it "running under FreeBSD?"
yes, because I recall that it was for precisely that reason
I asked him.. (Whistle Interjet)
I should check again though because I may be misremembering
>
> What if, for example, what if a product came together that
> was the Linux kernel with the FreeBSD command set? Is that
> "running under FreeBSD?"
I doubt it.
> Would you be forced to send out
> your complete sources in that event?
>
> This is where the license issues are...
>
> - Dave Rivers -
--
__--_|\ 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
