www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Robbie Gemmell (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Created] (LEGAL-99) Question around use of Berkeley DB Java Edition for an optional component
Date Sun, 28 Aug 2011 21:06:37 GMT
Question around use of Berkeley DB Java Edition for an optional component
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Key: LEGAL-99
                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-99
             Project: Legal Discuss
          Issue Type: Question
            Reporter: Robbie Gemmell


Hi. I am wondering whether I have appropriately interpreted the options for use of a Category
X dependency, based on reading of the Legal FAQ [1] and to an extent the draft Third Party
Licensing Policy page [2].

Qpid has [persistent] stores to hold configuration and message data, with 3 current implementations
(Memory, Derby, and BDB) of the interfaces. The last of these depends on Bekeley DB Java Edition
which is under the Sleepycat licence [3] and is listed as Category X at [2]. As a result this
store implementation has always been hosted elsewhere and recently I began looking into moving
it to Apache Extras. Having done so however I am instead left with the impression that, given
how we already use it, it would actually be possible to move the code into the ASF repo.

My reading of the (incredibly short) Sleepycat licence suggests the restriction it imposes
that makes BDB a Category X dependency is associated with the restrictions on the inclusion
of BDB itself in a distribution (something that ASF policy would always prohibit us from doing)
that also forces distribution of code for both BDB as well as the product using it, and that
merely using the BDB classes/interfaces in our store code doesn't place licence restriction
on that code (which is currently licenced as Apache Licence v2.0).

Based on this and reading of all the linked pages, it seems to me that the following should
be possible:
- Our BDBStore code lives in the ASF repo as the glue code for an optional component that
is not compiled by the build process by default, and is not referred to by the configuration
the project ships (which would continue to use the Memory or Derby based implementations as
we do presently).
- Targets are added to our Ant based build to allow downloading the BDB jar (with warning
that it is Sleepycat licenced) and building the BDBStore module.
- Documentation is added to describe how users would update their configuration to use the
optional component, and where to download the necessary BDB dependency it requires (again
with warning it is Sleepycat licenced).

IANAL though, so is my reasoning sound? During my searching I also came across instances of
other apache projects which currently are or have previously been doing roughly the same thing
(using Maven builds) with BDB JE as I describe above, which hopefully suggests it is, but
can somebody humour me? 

Thanks,
Robbie

[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
[2] http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#options
[3] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/berkeleydb/downloads/jeoslicense-086837.html

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message