Locking database cleanup?

[Gerald (Jerry) Carter]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> lör 2006-04-08 klockan 06:51 -0500 skrev Gerald (Jerry) Carter:
> 
>> Did they change it?  It use to be GPL compatipable but only
>> available for certain uses.
> 
> They did change it some years ago, after pressure 
> from various GPL vendors IIRC.

For non-commercial purposes only though IIRC.  Correct?
So anyone could maintain a bdb patch outside of tree (or
even a non-required patch in tree).  But relying on bdb
would be limiting in the grand sense of the word.  This
would cripple Samba's ability to be shipped by vendors
(or at least require purchansing a commercial license for
it).  Now you ask why I would care?  Mostly because Samba
gains a tremendous amount of value from vendors (mostly in
the QA and estoteric features areas).

Licensing issues aside, technically there seems no advantage
for our needs as tridge eloquently pointed out.  So the
licensing issue really doesn't matter.  If someone wants
a bdb backend, that fine.  We certainly have that freedom.
And freedom is what I really care about.






cheers, jerry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEN7aiIR7qMdg1EfYRAii7AKCsqEaz6qB77Efqik8j+GHwex5xgQCg1vfG
ngAV/Xv7mlQGp7qw4Z82+6o=
=mziJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----