Re: Proposal: replace no-overwrite with Berkeley DB

On Mon, 15 May 2000, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> On Mon, 15 May 2000, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> 
> > Everythingn up to here sounds great ... but this part here totally throws
> > me off ... this would mean that, unlike now where we rely on *zero*
> > external code,
> 
> ... where `zero' is defined as regex package, GNU make, Autoconf, Flex,
> Perl, multibyte code ...

where zero is defined as "I can build a binary, put it up on the ftp site,
and nobody has any other requirements in order to use it" ...

> > Effectively, if at some point down the road, the SleepyCat license
> > changes, the whole project just gets slam'd for a loop ...
> 
> Hmm, didn't you recently dismiss the argument "What if at some point down
> the road PostgreSQL Inc./Great Bridge/Evil Empire changes the
> license/abducts the source code of PostgreSQL" with "use the last free
> version"?

Okay, then are we merging SleepyCat's code into ours, and distributing
their code?  Or are we relying on someone having a copy of the libraries
already installed on their machine?