db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael J. Segel" <mse...@segel.com>
Subject Re: [Fwd: Re: Are you happy with Derby?]
Date Thu, 27 Oct 2005 12:44:54 GMT
On Thursday 27 October 2005 02:08, Craig L Russell wrote:
> I am not a lawyer, but I believe that Michael's interpretation is way
> off base.
Uhm, I suggest that you talk to a lawyer... ;-)
Cut out the history since we all know I made a mistake thinking GPL.
Oh yeah. SOX RULE!

> > Yeah,
> > I went back and read Apache 2.0.
> > Very interesting reading.
> > And no, its not compatible with GPL. (Again talk to a lawyer. ;-)
> True, but who cares? The Apache license is much more liberal than GPL
> or even LGPL.
Uhm. No. Or rather spoken like a Sun employee. ;-)
The "liberal" Apache license is a license to rape IP.
(Maybe that's a harsh statement. )
Essentially you're saying that any work you have done on an Apache product is 
done gratis and that you have no future rights to protect the IP.

Read the comments on "derivative works". 

I guess you could say that this is a good thing if you're looking at using 
Derby vs MySQL.   Which is why MySQL can be released under multiple licensing 
types. GPL affords certain protections to the author, or rather to the 
author's intentions.

As I said. Any work done here is fair game.
Having said that, its interesting that Apache has a separate "contributor" 
agreement(s). My guess its to protect themselves from a "SCO v. IBM" 

> > Essentially you are correct. All you need to include is the notice
> > that you
> > used Apache code  in your product and follow the instructions and
> > you're free
> > to do with it what you want.
> "If" you include notices then you need to include the notice that you
> used Apache code.
Yes, that is what I meant by following the instructions....

> > This would also explain why I see so many folks from IBM and SUN
> > here. ;-)
> > (TANSTAAFL still applies. Hopefully McNeally, and Mills remember
> > this.... )
> >
> > So essentially, anything is fair game. The only draw back is that
> > if you
> > wanted to do some cool work, any corporation could just take your
> > IP and
> > apply it in their own products.
> Not at all. You are free to license the derived work under any
> license you choose.
Uhm no.

From Apache's 2.0:
	 "Licensor" shall mean the copyright owner or entity authorized by the 
	copyright owner that is granting the License.
(This would be the person who is writing the code.)

	 "Derivative Works" shall mean any work, whether in Source or Object form,
	 that is based on (or derived from) the Work and for which the editorial
	 revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a
	 whole, an original work of authorship. For the purposes of this License,
	 Derivative Works shall not include works that remain separable from, or
	 merely link (or bind by name) to the interfaces of, the Work and Derivative
	 Works thereof.

	 "Contribution" shall mean any work of authorship, including the original
	 version of the Work and any modifications or additions to that Work or
	 Derivative Works thereof, that is intentionally submitted to Licensor for
	 inclusion in the Work by the copyright owner or by an individual or Legal
	 Entity authorized to submit on behalf of the copyright owner. For the
	 purposes of this definition, "submitted" means any form of electronic,
	 verbal, or written communication sent to the Licensor or its
	 representatives, including but not limited to communication on electronic
	 mailing lists, source code control systems, and issue tracking systems that
	 are managed by, or on behalf of, the Licensor for the purpose of discussing
	 and improving the Work, but excluding communication that is conspicuously
	 marked or otherwise designated in writing by the copyright owner as "Not a

	"Contributor" shall mean Licensor and any individual or Legal Entity on
	 behalf of whom a Contribution has been received by Licensor and subsequently
	 incorporated within the Work. 

(What I am talking about is that you are the contributor...)

In plain sight:

	2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this
	 License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide,
	 non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to
	 reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform,
	 sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or
	 Object form.

Note: What I am talking about is that you are the contributor.

You don't license anything. Anyone is free to use at will.
There's more to it, but right there, you've lost any way to protect  your IP.
Good for the community, bad for the author.

Its a good thing you're not a lawyer.  ;-)

> > For example, if one were to create a really cool method for
> > optimizing query
> > performance and adds it to Derby, IBM or Oracle could take that and
> > use it in
> > their other products.
> No, there is no requirement that you even publish your changes.
Sigh. And that's the point.
By contributing to Derby, you lose any IP protection on the work that you 

If you modify Derby and you don't want to publish your code then you run in to 
the issue of either freezing the version of Derby that you started with, or 
you need to maintain your own code stream and every time that Derby releases 
a new revision, you have to merge it to your code stream.

Under Apache, its good for companies that want to use Derby as is. Thus its 
good for Derby since it will attract more users.

What is interesting is that IBM (read Steve M. and Janet P.) gave Derby away.
[And no, I'm not going to expand on that comment, at least not until next 
year. ;-) ]

> > The only way to protect against that would be to
> > create your own distribution tree and as each new version of Derby
> > that comes
> > out, you would have to merge it against your tree.
> If you want to use Derby with proprietary and non-Apache license
> terms, of course you would create a distribution that includes your
> modifications. But you could choose the timing of when you re-
> synchronized with the Derby distribution.
Uhm no. Or rather your best bet would be to keep in synch with the GA 
> > Bottom line. Its best to use Derby, as it, and if you wanted to
> > extend Derby,
> > write your own Java Database. ;-)
> I don't know where this conclusion came from. The Apache license is
> very liberal for developers who just want to use Derby as is as well
> as for developers who want to change it just a bit, as well as for
> developers who want to radically change some part of it.
> I'd really suggest a competent legal authority review this with you.
> Craig
I suggest that you learn to think before you type.

Lets see if I can restate in a simple to read summary.

Under the Apache License, as a contributor, any code that you release is fair 
game. That is, any intellectual property that you contribute can be used by 
anyone in any fashion.

If you want to use Derby as a basis for your own development, thats fine. 
However, you now have the cost of synchronizing your code stream with the 
official Derby code stream, if you want to protect your IP.

The bottom line, is that as a product developer, I will want to use Derby as 
is and keep letting IBM and SUN maintain it for me. Its a *free* relational 
database written in Java. 

Michael Segel
(312) 952-8175

View raw message