directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Karasulu <aok...@bellsouth.net>
Subject Re: [bdbje] [Licensing] Open Source verses Commercial Use
Date Tue, 26 Jul 2005 05:28:36 GMT
Niclas Hedhman wrote:

>On Tuesday 26 July 2005 07:56, Michael A. Olson wrote:
>  
>
>>Let me begin by pointing out what may be obvious -- there's no issue  
>>of compatibility between the Apache License 2.0 and the Sleepycat  
>>Public License. The Sleepycat license was designed to be identical in  
>>effect with the GPL.
>>    
>>
>
>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?

>>To be clear, Sleepycat believes in open source software. We support  
>>it with real cash, for developer salaries, and with our time and  
>>effort, in supporting open source projects that use Berkeley DB. We  
>>don't, however, write software for free, for other people to sell.
>>    
>>
>
>Great. I don't think anyone here is questioning the honorable intents of 
>Sleepycat. This is purely a principle of Open/Free idealogies, of which one 
>or the other is not "more right", just different and not legally compatible.
>
>  
>
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.

>>Our experience in the open source DS world has been that people really 
>>don't make proprietary mods to the open source products.
>>    
>>
>
>That may be true for the majority of users, up until the point where the 
>project is no longer maintained. However, ASF believes it is not up to us to 
>decide what the downstream users want to do with the software.
>
>  
>
Also true.  The ASF tries to maintain as much liberty as possible for 
our users whether they be commercial companies with closed sources or 
open source developers.

>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.

Alex




Mime
View raw message