directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org>
Subject Re: [bdbje] [Licensing] Open Source verses Commercial Use
Date Thu, 28 Jul 2005 05:00:38 GMT
On Tuesday 26 July 2005 13:28, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> >Ok. And Apache projects can not use GPLed products for the same reasons.
> > (And according to FSF GPLed projects can't use Apache licensed products,
> > due to some patent grant issues...)
>
> This is unfortunately true.  However GPLed code can use Apache licenced
> products I thought.   INAL so I would not know.  Is it actually the case?

The FSF Legal Counsel has constructed a "use-case" (which I personally can't 
understand) which is involving patents, that shows an implicit constraint 
from the ASL that is not compatible with GPL. AFAIK, ASF and FSF legal folks 
are discussing the options on how to make amendments to either or both of the 
licenses to overcome this case. But I think that is more than a year away 
from materialization.

> Indeed! I personally have a profound respect for the folks at
> SleepyCat.  They helped us considerably while ApacheDS was known as the
> LDAPd server at sourceforge.net.  We at that time used the JNI
> interfaces to Berkeley DB the C edition.  They were very cooperative
> with us in giving us the support they would give to paying clients.  I
> would imagine the people at SleepyCat need to eat, pay their mortgage ..
> and so on.

Very glad to hear that.

> >P.S. Mental Note to Incubation members; This slipped through Incubation,
> > so I think we need to tighten the checks over there. Each project listing
> > all external dependencies and which license they are all in, in a table,
> > perhaps.
>
> Nothing slipped through incubation Niclas.  We switched from using
> Berkeley DB C edition to JDBM and have no dependencies what so ever on
> external software with conflicting licenses.

I have not read their licensing terms, so I need to take your word for it. You 
are effectively saying that the Berkeley DB C edition is licensed 
differently, and not in "to be identical in effect with the GPL" terms. If it 
is LGPL terms, and the Java native interface is (c) ASF & committers, then 
there is no issue.


Cheers
Niclas

Mime
View raw message