I'm still not sure what your policy is.  Let me explain why I'm confused.

On Mon, 16 Feb 1998, Sleepycat Software wrote:
> >> The license says you can use it commercially
> >> if you distribute the source for your application.  
> >
> > The license at http://www.sleepycat.com/license.net requires a little
> > bit more; it requires not only that you distribute the source, but also
> > that you make the source freely redistributable.
> 
> This is correct.  

So this means that GPLed software is allowed under this clause, and
doesn't need a special dispensation, right?  Or does the GPL not qualify
as "freely redistributable under reasonable conditions"?

> Our intent is that people freely redistributing their work be
> permitted to freely redistribute our work.  People wanting to
> sell our software are required to obtain a commercial license.

So this means that GPLed software is *not* allowed under this clause,
since it can be freely sold?

> If this is an unfair policy for any particular distribution, we
> are happy to come to an arrangement or create a special license
> for that distribution.
> 
> For example, there are various software packages where the
> authors *want* vendors to have permission to sell their work,
> e.g., Samba and other GNU-licensed software.  

So this is an example of when you create a special license for that
distribution, since your normal license (license.net) doesn't permit
use of Berkeley DB 2.0 in GPLed applications?

> We're happy to
> permit these authors to include Berkeley DB in their packages,
> under whatever terms they choose, with the only restriction
> being that vendors cannot extract DB from the package and use
> it separately.

But this is a deliberate, explicit separate licensing agreement,
specially created for those packages, and not included in the normal
http://www.sleepycat.com/license.net terms?

I'm just as confused as I was before!

Kragen