On Mon, 15 May 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Seems this changes our license more toward GPL. I don't think that is
> > > going to be supportable by the group. I doubt we are willing to modify
> > > our license in order to use the Sleepycat DB code.
> >
> > I don't know ... I read this as totally anti-GPL ... "you are more then
> > welcome to distribute binary only, but then you have to pay us for use of
> > our libraries" ...
> >
> > ... the only aspect that would worry me is if SleepCat were to change
> > their license and make it more restrictive ...
>
> But it ties the hands of binary-only distributors, or pay them. Not a
> good choice.
Woah here ... didn't Michael state that binary-only was okay, as long as
the source *was* available on the 'Net? ie. Enhydra can distribute their
binaries, as long as sources were still available on postgresql.org?
