The sleepycat license.

[Mo DeJong <md...@cygnus.com>]

Hi all.

I just tried to build svn a got word that
I didn't have the proper Berkeley DB
version needed for libsvn_fs. I followed
the instructions and went to the sleepycat
homepage. After poking around a bit,
I hit this page:

http://www.sleepycat.com/licensing.html

On that page, the following text appears:

"If you build an application that you do
not redistribute outside of your 
site, or if you build an application
and your source code is freely available
and redistributable by others, 
you may use Berkeley DB at no charge."

That seemed a bit odd to me. The
original BSD license is still mentioned
in the sleepycat license:

http://www.sleepycat.com/license.net

But, this additional condition #3
seems a bit more like a GPL clause
than a BSD one.

 * 3. Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on
 *    how to obtain complete source code for the DB software and any
 *    accompanying software that uses the DB software.  The source code
 *    must either be included in the distribution or be available for no
 *    more than the cost of distribution plus a nominal fee, and must be
 *    freely redistributable under reasonable conditions.  For an
 *    executable file, complete source code means the source code for all
 *    modules it contains.  It does not include source code for modules or
 *    files that typically accompany the major components of the operating
 *    system on which the executable file runs.


Note the "and any software that uses the DB software" part.

It seems like using sleepycat's modified Berkely DB is
going to throw a wrench in the ability for anyone to
create a proprietary product derived from svn. I am
not saying that is a bad thing, I like the GPL. I
am also not trying to start a flame war or anything.
I just want to make sure that someone has considered
this issue since the sleepycat terms seem more
restrictive than the apache and collabnet terms.

Mo DeJong
Red Hat Inc

Re: The sleepycat license.

[Brian Behlendorf <br...@collab.net>]

My analysis is that it doesn't place any requirements that the GPL itself
doesn't place, and yet at the same time isn't incompatible with the
BSD-based license SVN has.  For commercial redistributors, the issue is
really going to come down to the definition of "use" in "software that
uses the DB software" - is that in the "same address space", as the GPL
defines?  What about soft loading?  Or calling over another network API
(will a DAV client "using" the subversion server also be indirectly
"using" DB), etc.

Knowing that SC's aim is the embedded-DB space, and judging from that
clause, I'd say that this probably only applies to apps that directly call
DB's apis, so "in the same process space" is probably what applies.  If I
were releasing a commercial version of subversion, it would mean that I'd
make sure I had the process that sat on top of the DB did as little as
possible and talked through IPC to whereever I had my proprietary
"smarts" I didn't want to have to reveal the source code to.

If anyone thinks that is too onerous, they are welcome to build an
interface to another more freely licenseable DB library, or a true
versioning filesystem for that matter.  =)  The license on SVN will stay
BSD so this opportunity is not lost.

	Brian

On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, Mo DeJong wrote:
> It seems like using sleepycat's modified Berkely DB is
> going to throw a wrench in the ability for anyone to
> create a proprietary product derived from svn. I am
> not saying that is a bad thing, I like the GPL. I
> am also not trying to start a flame war or anything.
> I just want to make sure that someone has considered
> this issue since the sleepycat terms seem more
> restrictive than the apache and collabnet terms.
>
> Mo DeJong
> Red Hat Inc
>