directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Wilcox <mark.wil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [bdbje] [Licensing] Open Source verses Commercial Use
Date Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:17:13 GMT
I don't think anyone is saying you should require  Sleepycat JE to use
Apache DS - just make it an option. Then that shouldn't violate
anyones license or principals unless you're going to be an idealogue
and that's as limiting to innovation/adoption/community as any certain
monopolistic company.

Mark
 


On 7/25/05, David Boreham <david@bozemanpass.com> wrote:
> Paul Franz wrote:
> 
> > As a way around the redistribution restriction, couldn't a person
> > create their application to use the Berkley DB JE API, but not
> > redistribute it. Instead have the person installing the application
> > grab it and install it separately. Therefore the person distributing
> > the application would not be violating the license while still letting
> > them develop against it.
> >
> > Is the above correct, or am I missing something?
> 
> I think this is called Redistribution by Proxy, and it's not allowed (or
> rather
> it puts you in exactly the same position wrt the licence as if you had
> distributed the bits directly).
> 
> GPL'ed code like the JE basically makes you release all the source
> code for the process into which you link it. This is one of the things
> that the Apache Licence doesn't make you do, so they're fundamentally
> different.
> 
> I guess Apache DS depends on a Java runtime, and Java isn't Apache Licensed,
> but presumably that's not a problem...
> 
> 
>

Mime
View raw message