db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <Craig.Russ...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: [Fwd: Re: Are you happy with Derby?]
Date Thu, 27 Oct 2005 07:08:44 GMT
I am not a lawyer, but I believe that Michael's interpretation is way  
off base.

On Oct 26, 2005, at 10:50 PM, Michael J. Segel wrote:

> On Thursday 27 October 2005 00:00, David W. Van Couvering wrote:
>
>> Michael J. Segel wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday 26 October 2005 17:44, Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>>>
>>>> Raji Sridar wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Michael,
>>>>>
>>>>> Your opinion was very encouraging - I also built a prototype  
>>>>> based on
>>>>> Derby. I am happy to say, that our management has almost  
>>>>> decided on
>>>>> Derby, subject to legal approval for the licensing aspects.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah thats the kicker.
>>> I'm not a lawyer, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
>>>
>>> If you use Derby embedded in your app, you have to also ship a  
>>> copy of
>>> the derby source code with your app.  Note: If your app is  
>>> actually a
>>> modification to Derby, then you have to publish the source code  
>>> of your
>>> app. And this is where it gets tricky.
>>>
>>
>> Huh?  It sounds like you are talking about Gnu Public License, not
>> Apache 2.0 license.  I'm not a lawyer either, and you do need to  
>> check
>> the license, but as I understand it, you are free to redistribute
>> binaries as you see fit, and source code of neither Derby nor your
>> application need to be provided.  You can also take Derby and  
>> modify it
>> as your needs fit and are free to either put these changes back into
>> Apache Derby or not.
>>
>> David
>>
>
> Errr yeah, probably. I was typing this as I was watching the 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.

> 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.
>
> 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
>
> Interesting....
>
> -- 
> Michael Segel
> Principal
> MSCC
> (312) 952-8175
>


Mime
View raw message