You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to derby-user@db.apache.org by Raji Sridar <ra...@cisco.com> on 2005/10/26 23:58:15 UTC
FW: [Fwd: Re: Are you happy with Derby?]
Hi Michael,
Your opinion was very encouraging - I also built a prototype based on Derby.
I am happy to say, that our management has almost decided on Derby, subject
to legal approval for the licensing aspects.
We plan to use Derby as an embedded RDBMS in our Network Management
Application. The data stored in Derby will be typical network management
data pertaining to the inventory, fault and performance aspects of network
elements.
With this mind, I would like a clarification:
If an external application would like to extract this data for correlation
with the typical customer data, the general way will be to use ij and
proceed. The double booting issue will prevent this. What are all the
possible workarounds for the double booting issue? Can you please give me
the required pointers?
Is there any potential issue when multiple copies of Derby runs in the same
PC (Within the same application or within different applications)?
I appreciate your inputs.
Thanks
Raji
_____
From: Raji Sridar [mailto:raji@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 11:17 AM
To: raji Sridar
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Are you happy with Derby?]
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Are you happy with Derby?
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 13:20:17 -0500
From: "Michael J. Segel" <ma...@segel.com> <ms...@segel.com>
Reply-To: "Derby Discussion" <ma...@db.apache.org>
<de...@db.apache.org>
To: derby-user@db.apache.org
CC: Raji Sridar <ma...@cisco.com> <ra...@cisco.com>
References: <ma...@cisco.com>
<43...@cisco.com>
On Friday 09 September 2005 12:49, Raji Sridar wrote:
First take what I say with a grain of Salt....
You're asking a Derby list so you're going to get a positive and biased
response. The short answer is yes.
> Hello Derby Users,
>
> I recently subscribed to this group.
> We are evaluating a open source database for a windows based network
> management product for the commercial market.
> The criteria is to have zero cost, zero admin, small footprint, with max
> reliability and good support availability.
Derby is really your only option.
With respect to other alternatives, I don't believe MySQL is "free" if
you're
going to embed it in an app for resale.
Of all of the "free" RDBMSs, Derby has the smallest footprint, and since its
a
derivative of Cloudscape, its already been used and proven in the type of
application that you're attempting to build. You could use PostGress, but
again, you're getting a lot of additional features that you really don't
need
or want.
The only caveat is your "good support" criteria.
"Good Support" is relative. You get what you pay for...
> We are looking the ability to prototype and develop fast - hence
> planning to use Hibernate in conjunction with Derby.
> We are not looking for database features like client-server, redundancy,
> replication, high availability, 2-phase commit.....
> For these criteria, do you agree that Derby is the best choice?
> Please give your opinions and suggestions - I appreciate and value your
> opinions.
>
> Sincerely,
> Raji
As I said, you're going to get a biased response.
I like others are looking at Derby from a similar perspective.
The only drawback is that Derby is under GPL. So as long as you follow GPL's
rules, you're ok.
--
Michael Segel
Principal
MSCC
(312) 952-8175
Re: FW: [Fwd: Re: Are you happy with Derby?]
Posted by Sunitha Kambhampati <ks...@gmail.com>.
Michael J. Segel wrote:
>The only drawback is that Derby is under GPL. So as long as you follow GPL's
>rules, you're ok.
>
< snip - lots of stuff about gpl>
Derby is* not licensed *under GPL. See
http://db.apache.org/derby/license.html
Derby is available under the Apache License, Version 2.0
<http://www.apache.org/licenses/>
Sunitha.
Re: [Fwd: Re: Are you happy with Derby?]
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Michael J. Segel wrote:
> On Thursday 27 October 2005 23:04, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>
>>Michael J. Segel wrote:
>>
>>>...
>>>Getting back to Apache, under Apache, the contributor pretty much puts
>>>his software out in the public eye and says have at it.
>>>
>>>Apache is great if your goal is to take and use the IP or embed the
>>>product in your application for resale.
>>>
>>>It sucks if you're a developer and want to extend an existing app with
>>>some new IP that has some monetary value. This is what I meant about
>>>protecting your IP.
>>>...
>>
>>It seems clear that you don't like the Apache License. That's fine;
>>everyone is entitled to his or her opinion.
>>
>>In your case, perhaps it would be wise to avoid using/developing
>>software licensed under the ASL.
>>
>> -jean
>
>
> Jean,
>
> I guess you have a bit of defensive streak because you're misinterpretting
> what I'm saying.
>
> As a user of Apache products, its a great thing. Since one of the posters was
> from Cisco asking about it, yeah Derby is a much better deal than MySQL since
> he can avoid any legal issues and use it as he/she feels fit.
>
> Cisco gets an embedable database for "free". Sans support, but hey, they
> always have you to support the product, or they could pay to have someone
> maintain a code stream and fix it themselves.
>
> The net net, is that they can save a bundle by not having to license an RDBMS
> from someone. Even after steep discounts, its still pretty expensive. Now who
> is it that they currently use.... ;-)
>
> Sorry, but using Derby is one thing. Contributing IP to improve Derby is
> another.
>
> Sorry to beat a dead/dying horse, but I thought that this should clear things
> up.
>
This is the wrong list for discussing Apache licensing. Users subscribe
to this list to discuss how to use Derby.
That much said, if you have a specific question about the ASL that isn't
addressed by one of the resources mentioned at
http://db.apache.org/derby/license.html , please feel free to post that
question here. I'll take it to the DB PMC for clarification and, if
needed, on to legal-discuss@apache.org.
Please use derby-user for discussions on how to use Derby.
-jean
Re: [Fwd: Re: Are you happy with Derby?]
Posted by "Michael J. Segel" <ms...@segel.com>.
On Thursday 27 October 2005 23:04, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> Michael J. Segel wrote:
> > ...
> > Getting back to Apache, under Apache, the contributor pretty much puts
> > his software out in the public eye and says have at it.
> >
> > Apache is great if your goal is to take and use the IP or embed the
> > product in your application for resale.
> >
> > It sucks if you're a developer and want to extend an existing app with
> > some new IP that has some monetary value. This is what I meant about
> > protecting your IP.
> > ...
>
> It seems clear that you don't like the Apache License. That's fine;
> everyone is entitled to his or her opinion.
>
> In your case, perhaps it would be wise to avoid using/developing
> software licensed under the ASL.
>
> -jean
Jean,
I guess you have a bit of defensive streak because you're misinterpretting
what I'm saying.
As a user of Apache products, its a great thing. Since one of the posters was
from Cisco asking about it, yeah Derby is a much better deal than MySQL since
he can avoid any legal issues and use it as he/she feels fit.
Cisco gets an embedable database for "free". Sans support, but hey, they
always have you to support the product, or they could pay to have someone
maintain a code stream and fix it themselves.
The net net, is that they can save a bundle by not having to license an RDBMS
from someone. Even after steep discounts, its still pretty expensive. Now who
is it that they currently use.... ;-)
Sorry, but using Derby is one thing. Contributing IP to improve Derby is
another.
Sorry to beat a dead/dying horse, but I thought that this should clear things
up.
--
Michael Segel
Principal
MSCC
(312) 952-8175
Re: [Fwd: Re: Are you happy with Derby?]
Posted by "Michael J. Segel" <ms...@segel.com>.
On Thursday 27 October 2005 23:28, Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> Michael J. Segel wrote:
> > On Thursday 27 October 2005 15:19, Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> > Sigh.
> >
> > Dan, you really need to pay more attention to what was written.
> >
> > With respect to GPL I never talked about end users.
> > Just those who license their code under GPL.
> > GPL does allow a company to release the code under a different license as
> > well.
>
> I think I finally see what you are getting at, I have a hard time
> understanding your posts as you seem to avoid saying things clearly,
> instead preferring to imply things.
>
Yup. Sorry about that.
I'm making the assumption that you're familiar with this stuff already and I
didn't want to be accused of talking down or lecturing someone. ;-)
> I was put off track by your statement above:
>
> "GPL does allow a company to release the code under a different license
> as well."
>
Uhm, I think the only thing that I implied was that a company who releases
software under the GPL is the contributing company.
> Since you never specified earlier you were only talking about the
> copyright holder, I assumed 'a company' meany any company, and since you
> introduced this topic in what seemed to be an ASL/GPL post I assumed
> your were talking about re-distributing.
>
Well again, in my example, I used MySQL AB. which is of course the company and
not the product. I thought that should be clear.
> But if you are talking about the copyright holder, then your statement
> taken by itself is misleading, at least it mislead me. (Because the GPL
> is not the mechanism that allows the copyright holder to use other
> licences, e.g. I could replace GPL with ASL in that exact sentence and
> it makes the same amount of sense).
>
> I think what you are trying to say is:
>
> - By releasing the software under the GPL, its redistribution by others
> is limited to the GPL, thus the copyright holder has the potential
> advantage of using other licences.
>
Thats true, however not exactly my point.
Releasing code under the GPL means that there is no direct commercial benefit
to the "copyright holder" (Using your term). The "copyright holder" has
commercial benefit from using an alternative license and selling support.
Also under GPL, they can sell ancillary products and benefit by having a
certain amount of market share.
MySQL AB is a great example of this model.
Going back to what you said, there's an additional economic benefit to the
"copyright holder". Suppose you contribute a "fix" or "enhancement" to their
baseline code. You have to release that "fix/enhancement" under the GPL.
This benefits the "copyright holder" because now you've improved his product.
Using MySQL AB as an example, they can now utilize you enhancements which will
make the product more attractive and increase the number of potential users
of their commercial license. While the GPL reduces the profitability of a
company, it also reduces their risks as a start up. This Open Source model
has more of a symbiotic relationship than Apache's.
> I agree that is technically correct. But this mailing list is not the
> place to discuss the pros and cons of GPL and ASL.
>
> > Hypothetical situation. You figure out a way to efficiently handle SQL
> > Optimization that really reduces overhead. There is nothing for stopping
> > IBM or Oracle to come in and steal your IP and use it in their products,
> > once you put it in the public eye under Apache.
>
> Well, at least IBM's not a problem for me, since my IP is IBM's IP. :-)
> But I'm not sure either way what you say is 100% correct, but since
> neither you or I are a lawyer there's no point continuing the discussion.
>
Yeah, I know the agreement very well. ;-)
> > The wild thing is that IBM was short sighted when they released Derby
> > under Apache.
>
> That of course, is only your opinion. I don't see it that way.
>
> Dan.
Well you know what they say about Opinions... ;-)
LOL... thats because you haven't thought it out, nor has IBM.
Derby has the chance to become the MySQL and SQLServer killer.
This is in the near future. Under Apache, as a user, you have pretty much free
reign to do as he or she pleases. And this is why I like Derby and chose
Derby over MySQL... ;-)
Of course when you consider that 70% of the applications that use databases,
Derby,MySQL,Sybase, Oracle, SQLServer, DB2 and IDS all could be used.
Thats a large base.
As things progress, Java and Derby become a compelling choice because of the
economic incentive. (ITS FREE!). So now you start to eat in to their existing
market, or potential SMB market. What I can say is that the SMB market is
very important to IBM. (They've publically said that many times.) By
releasing Derby, they have released a potential competitor.
There are a *lot* of improvements that can be made to Derby that may make it
more of a competitor. For example. Using RAW filesystems instead of Cooked
files.... ;-)
So yeah. There's a lot of potential...
But hey, what do I know? .... ;-)
--
Michael Segel
Principal
MSCC
(312) 952-8175
Re: [Fwd: Re: Are you happy with Derby?]
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@apache.org>.
Michael J. Segel wrote:
> ...
> Getting back to Apache, under Apache, the contributor pretty much puts his
> software out in the public eye and says have at it.
>
> Apache is great if your goal is to take and use the IP or embed the product in
> your application for resale.
>
> It sucks if you're a developer and want to extend an existing app with some
> new IP that has some monetary value. This is what I meant about protecting
> your IP.
> ...
It seems clear that you don't like the Apache License. That's fine;
everyone is entitled to his or her opinion.
In your case, perhaps it would be wise to avoid using/developing
software licensed under the ASL.
-jean
Re: [Fwd: Re: Are you happy with Derby?]
Posted by Andrew McIntyre <mc...@gmail.com>.
On Oct 27, 2005, at 8:17 PM, Michael J. Segel wrote:
> Apache is great if your goal is to take and use the IP or embed the
> product in
> your application for resale.
>
> It sucks if you're a developer and want to extend an existing app
> with some
> new IP that has some monetary value. This is what I meant about
> protecting
> your IP.
I think you've got it a little backwards, I think. The GPL requires
that any modifications to GPL-licensed code be distributed under the
GPL as well. This allows resale, but not extension, without releasing
the source to your modifications. Thus, if you combine your IP with
GPL-licensed code, you have to release the source to your IP. If
anything, this means that the original copyright holder has the right
to use your IP in their GPL-licensed product as well, for free. This
pushes your IP back up to the original copyright holder.
The ASL does not require the distribution of source modifications
combined with works licensed under the ASL. It is your choice to
contribute them back to the original project. You can choose not to
release the source to modified ASL code to the public - thus
protecting your IP - without being in violation of the ASL.
> That's the kicker.
The kicker is that this isn't the place for license discussions, it's
a place to discuss using Derby. While licensing is a part of that,
there are other places - and lawyers - for determining whether a
particular software license is a good fit for your needs.
Your input is appreciated, of course. And while I couldn't help but
chime in, I think this discussion has meandered a little far off
course....
andrew
Re: [Fwd: Re: Are you happy with Derby?]
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@debrunners.com>.
Michael J. Segel wrote:
> On Thursday 27 October 2005 15:19, Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> Sigh.
>
> Dan, you really need to pay more attention to what was written.
>
> With respect to GPL I never talked about end users.
> Just those who license their code under GPL.
> GPL does allow a company to release the code under a different license as
> well.
I think I finally see what you are getting at, I have a hard time
understanding your posts as you seem to avoid saying things clearly,
instead preferring to imply things.
I was put off track by your statement above:
"GPL does allow a company to release the code under a different license
as well."
Since you never specified earlier you were only talking about the
copyright holder, I assumed 'a company' meany any company, and since you
introduced this topic in what seemed to be an ASL/GPL post I assumed
your were talking about re-distributing.
But if you are talking about the copyright holder, then your statement
taken by itself is misleading, at least it mislead me. (Because the GPL
is not the mechanism that allows the copyright holder to use other
licences, e.g. I could replace GPL with ASL in that exact sentence and
it makes the same amount of sense).
I think what you are trying to say is:
- By releasing the software under the GPL, its redistribution by others
is limited to the GPL, thus the copyright holder has the potential
advantage of using other licences.
I agree that is technically correct. But this mailing list is not the
place to discuss the pros and cons of GPL and ASL.
> Hypothetical situation. You figure out a way to efficiently handle SQL
> Optimization that really reduces overhead. There is nothing for stopping IBM
> or Oracle to come in and steal your IP and use it in their products, once you
> put it in the public eye under Apache.
Well, at least IBM's not a problem for me, since my IP is IBM's IP. :-)
But I'm not sure either way what you say is 100% correct, but since
neither you or I are a lawyer there's no point continuing the discussion.
> The wild thing is that IBM was short sighted when they released Derby under
> Apache.
That of course, is only your opinion. I don't see it that way.
Dan.
Re: [Fwd: Re: Are you happy with Derby?]
Posted by "Michael J. Segel" <ms...@segel.com>.
On Thursday 27 October 2005 15:19, Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
Sigh.
Dan, you really need to pay more attention to what was written.
With respect to GPL I never talked about end users.
Just those who license their code under GPL.
GPL does allow a company to release the code under a different license as
well.
I used MySQL AB as an example.
They license MySQL under GPL and their own license. That is what I mean by
allowing for a dual license. GPL allows contributors options. There is more
protection of IP under GPL than under Apache.
Getting back to Apache, under Apache, the contributor pretty much puts his
software out in the public eye and says have at it.
Apache is great if your goal is to take and use the IP or embed the product in
your application for resale.
It sucks if you're a developer and want to extend an existing app with some
new IP that has some monetary value. This is what I meant about protecting
your IP.
Hypothetical situation. You figure out a way to efficiently handle SQL
Optimization that really reduces overhead. There is nothing for stopping IBM
or Oracle to come in and steal your IP and use it in their products, once you
put it in the public eye under Apache.
That's the kicker.
The wild thing is that IBM was short sighted when they released Derby under
Apache. They may have been focusing on MySQL but they really should have been
looking at the bigger picture.
Cloudscape has the potential for being a giant killer. More so than MySQL. ;-)
> Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> > Obviously you are talking about something else, but I'm not sure what.
> > The ASL v2 allows distribution under a different licence, I thought the
> > GPL did not (clause 2b).
>
> To follow up with the facts, from the FSF itself:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#HeardOtherLicense
>
> <quote>
>
> The GNU GPL does not give users permission to attach other licenses to
> the program. But the copyright holder for a program can release it under
> several different licenses in parallel. One of them may be the GNU GPL.
>
> </quote>
>
> Thus if you obtain code under the GPL you are stuck with the GPL, unless
> of course you are the copyright holder.
>
> Dan.
--
Michael Segel
Principal
MSCC
(312) 952-8175
Re: [Fwd: Re: Are you happy with Derby?]
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@debrunners.com>.
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> Obviously you are talking about something else, but I'm not sure what.
> The ASL v2 allows distribution under a different licence, I thought the
> GPL did not (clause 2b).
To follow up with the facts, from the FSF itself:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#HeardOtherLicense
<quote>
The GNU GPL does not give users permission to attach other licenses to
the program. But the copyright holder for a program can release it under
several different licenses in parallel. One of them may be the GNU GPL.
</quote>
Thus if you obtain code under the GPL you are stuck with the GPL, unless
of course you are the copyright holder.
Dan.
Re: [Fwd: Re: Are you happy with Derby?]
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@debrunners.com>.
Michael J. Segel wrote:
> On Thursday 27 October 2005 12:22, Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>
>>Michael J. Segel wrote:
>>
>>>I guess you could say that this is a good thing if you're looking at
>>>using Derby vs MySQL. Which is why MySQL can be released under multiple
>>>licensing types. GPL affords certain protections to the author, or rather
>>>to the author's intentions.
>>
>>GPL has absolutly nothing to do with why MySQL can be released under
>>multiple licenses.
>>
>>MySQL AB can release MySQL under multiple licenses because they are the
>>sole owner of the copyright on the code and for Innodb (at least) they
>>have licenced that code from the copyright holder. Of course now the
>>copyright holder for the Innodb code is Oracle, which raises all sorts
>>of interesting possibilities.
>>
>>Dan.
>
> Sigh.
>
> Gee as the owner of the IP I would hope that MySQL could license their code as
> they saw fit. ;-)
>
> Did you actually read the GPL?
I guess I'm confused as to what you are talking about any more.
I thought you were talking about MySQL AB's practice of shipping MySQL
under a GPL licence or a commercial one. The commerical one is because
MySQL AB owns the copyright or has licenced it from the copyright holder.
Obviously you are talking about something else, but I'm not sure what.
The ASL v2 allows distribution under a different licence, I thought the
GPL did not (clause 2b).
Dan.
Re: [Fwd: Re: Are you happy with Derby?]
Posted by "Michael J. Segel" <ms...@segel.com>.
On Thursday 27 October 2005 12:22, Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> Michael J. Segel wrote:
> > I guess you could say that this is a good thing if you're looking at
> > using Derby vs MySQL. Which is why MySQL can be released under multiple
> > licensing types. GPL affords certain protections to the author, or rather
> > to the author's intentions.
>
> GPL has absolutly nothing to do with why MySQL can be released under
> multiple licenses.
>
> MySQL AB can release MySQL under multiple licenses because they are the
> sole owner of the copyright on the code and for Innodb (at least) they
> have licenced that code from the copyright holder. Of course now the
> copyright holder for the Innodb code is Oracle, which raises all sorts
> of interesting possibilities.
>
> Dan.
Sigh.
Gee as the owner of the IP I would hope that MySQL could license their code as
they saw fit. ;-)
Did you actually read the GPL?
--
Michael Segel
Principal
MSCC
(312) 952-8175
Re: [Fwd: Re: Are you happy with Derby?]
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@debrunners.com>.
Michael J. Segel wrote:
> I guess you could say that this is a good thing if you're looking at using
> Derby vs MySQL. Which is why MySQL can be released under multiple licensing
> types. GPL affords certain protections to the author, or rather to the
> author's intentions.
GPL has absolutly nothing to do with why MySQL can be released under
multiple licenses.
MySQL AB can release MySQL under multiple licenses because they are the
sole owner of the copyright on the code and for Innodb (at least) they
have licenced that code from the copyright holder. Of course now the
copyright holder for the Innodb code is Oracle, which raises all sorts
of interesting possibilities.
Dan.
Re: [Fwd: Re: Are you happy with Derby?]
Posted by Brian Bonner <br...@paraware.com>.
Michael
Michael J. Segel wrote:
> I suggest that you learn to think before you type.
>
Perhaps there is another venue (like the legal discuss list) for you to
have an apache license discussion.
I too understand derby to be Apache licensed and yes, if you want to
make a modification to Apache base code (i.e. derby) and don't want to
contribute it and keep it proprietary you can, and yes, if you want to
support derby updates, then yes you'd have to sync code.
Thanks,
Brian
Re: [Fwd: Re: Are you happy with Derby?]
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@debrunners.com>.
Michael J. Segel wrote:
> If you want to use Derby as a basis for your own development, thats fine.
> However, you now have the cost of synchronizing your code stream with the
> official Derby code stream, if you want to protect your IP.
The other approach to this issue is to work *with* the Derby community
to add extensibility to Derby in the areas required. Then it's a win-win
for everyone.
Derby is already desgined for internal and external (in some areas)
extensibility, and we are adding more.
Doesn't hurt to ask on the derby-dev list what is possible.
Dan.
Re: [Fwd: Re: Are you happy with Derby?]
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@debrunners.com>.
Michael J. Segel wrote:
> The "liberal" Apache license is a license to rape IP.
> (Maybe that's a harsh statement. )
> Essentially you're saying that any work you have done on an Apache product is
> done gratis and that you have no future rights to protect the IP.
> Under the Apache License, as a contributor, any code that you release is fair
> game. That is, any intellectual property that you contribute can be used by
> anyone in any fashion.
I don't believe any of that is true. Read section 3) Grant of Patent
License.
I'm not a lawyer, and as Michael said:
> I'm not a lawyer, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
so I think I will.
Dan.
Re: [Fwd: Re: Are you happy with Derby?]
Posted by "Michael J. Segel" <ms...@segel.com>.
On Thursday 27 October 2005 02:08, Craig L Russell wrote:
> I am not a lawyer, but I believe that Michael's interpretation is way
> off base.
>
Uhm, I suggest that you talk to a lawyer... ;-)
>[SNIP]
Cut out the history since we all know I made a mistake thinking GPL.
Oh yeah. SOX RULE!
> > Yeah,
> > I went back and read Apache 2.0.
> > Very interesting reading.
> > And no, its not compatible with GPL. (Again talk to a lawyer. ;-)
>
> True, but who cares? The Apache license is much more liberal than GPL
> or even LGPL.
>
Uhm. No. Or rather spoken like a Sun employee. ;-)
The "liberal" Apache license is a license to rape IP.
(Maybe that's a harsh statement. )
Essentially you're saying that any work you have done on an Apache product is
done gratis and that you have no future rights to protect the IP.
Read the comments on "derivative works".
I guess you could say that this is a good thing if you're looking at using
Derby vs MySQL. Which is why MySQL can be released under multiple licensing
types. GPL affords certain protections to the author, or rather to the
author's intentions.
As I said. Any work done here is fair game.
Having said that, its interesting that Apache has a separate "contributor"
agreement(s). My guess its to protect themselves from a "SCO v. IBM"
scenario....
> > Essentially you are correct. All you need to include is the notice
> > that you
> > used Apache code in your product and follow the instructions and
> > you're free
> > to do with it what you want.
>
> "If" you include notices then you need to include the notice that you
> used Apache code.
>
Yes, that is what I meant by following the instructions....
> > This would also explain why I see so many folks from IBM and SUN
> > here. ;-)
> > (TANSTAAFL still applies. Hopefully McNeally, and Mills remember
> > this.... )
> >
> > So essentially, anything is fair game. The only draw back is that
> > if you
> > wanted to do some cool work, any corporation could just take your
> > IP and
> > apply it in their own products.
>
> Not at all. You are free to license the derived work under any
> license you choose.
>
Uhm no.
Sigh.
From Apache's 2.0:
"Licensor" shall mean the copyright owner or entity authorized by the
copyright owner that is granting the License.
(This would be the person who is writing the code.)
"Derivative Works" shall mean any work, whether in Source or Object form,
that is based on (or derived from) the Work and for which the editorial
revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a
whole, an original work of authorship. For the purposes of this License,
Derivative Works shall not include works that remain separable from, or
merely link (or bind by name) to the interfaces of, the Work and Derivative
Works thereof.
"Contribution" shall mean any work of authorship, including the original
version of the Work and any modifications or additions to that Work or
Derivative Works thereof, that is intentionally submitted to Licensor for
inclusion in the Work by the copyright owner or by an individual or Legal
Entity authorized to submit on behalf of the copyright owner. For the
purposes of this definition, "submitted" means any form of electronic,
verbal, or written communication sent to the Licensor or its
representatives, including but not limited to communication on electronic
mailing lists, source code control systems, and issue tracking systems that
are managed by, or on behalf of, the Licensor for the purpose of discussing
and improving the Work, but excluding communication that is conspicuously
marked or otherwise designated in writing by the copyright owner as "Not a
Contribution."
"Contributor" shall mean Licensor and any individual or Legal Entity on
behalf of whom a Contribution has been received by Licensor and subsequently
incorporated within the Work.
(What I am talking about is that you are the contributor...)
In plain sight:
2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this
License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide,
non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to
reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform,
sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or
Object form.
Note: What I am talking about is that you are the contributor.
You don't license anything. Anyone is free to use at will.
There's more to it, but right there, you've lost any way to protect your IP.
Good for the community, bad for the author.
Its a good thing you're not a lawyer. ;-)
> > For example, if one were to create a really cool method for
> > optimizing query
> > performance and adds it to Derby, IBM or Oracle could take that and
> > use it in
> > their other products.
>
> No, there is no requirement that you even publish your changes.
>
Sigh. And that's the point.
By contributing to Derby, you lose any IP protection on the work that you
contribute.
If you modify Derby and you don't want to publish your code then you run in to
the issue of either freezing the version of Derby that you started with, or
you need to maintain your own code stream and every time that Derby releases
a new revision, you have to merge it to your code stream.
Under Apache, its good for companies that want to use Derby as is. Thus its
good for Derby since it will attract more users.
What is interesting is that IBM (read Steve M. and Janet P.) gave Derby away.
[And no, I'm not going to expand on that comment, at least not until next
year. ;-) ]
> > The only way to protect against that would be to
> > create your own distribution tree and as each new version of Derby
> > that comes
> > out, you would have to merge it against your tree.
>
> If you want to use Derby with proprietary and non-Apache license
> terms, of course you would create a distribution that includes your
> modifications. But you could choose the timing of when you re-
> synchronized with the Derby distribution.
>
Uhm no. Or rather your best bet would be to keep in synch with the GA
releases.
> > Bottom line. Its best to use Derby, as it, and if you wanted to
> > extend Derby,
> > write your own Java Database. ;-)
>
> I don't know where this conclusion came from. The Apache license is
> very liberal for developers who just want to use Derby as is as well
> as for developers who want to change it just a bit, as well as for
> developers who want to radically change some part of it.
>
> I'd really suggest a competent legal authority review this with you.
>
> Craig
>
I suggest that you learn to think before you type.
Lets see if I can restate in a simple to read summary.
Under the Apache License, as a contributor, any code that you release is fair
game. That is, any intellectual property that you contribute can be used by
anyone in any fashion.
If you want to use Derby as a basis for your own development, thats fine.
However, you now have the cost of synchronizing your code stream with the
official Derby code stream, if you want to protect your IP.
The bottom line, is that as a product developer, I will want to use Derby as
is and keep letting IBM and SUN maintain it for me. Its a *free* relational
database written in Java.
--
Michael Segel
Principal
MSCC
(312) 952-8175
Re: [Fwd: Re: Are you happy with Derby?]
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
I am not a lawyer, but I believe that Michael's interpretation is way
off base.
On Oct 26, 2005, at 10:50 PM, Michael J. Segel wrote:
> On Thursday 27 October 2005 00:00, David W. Van Couvering wrote:
>
>> Michael J. Segel wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday 26 October 2005 17:44, Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>>>
>>>> Raji Sridar wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Michael,
>>>>>
>>>>> Your opinion was very encouraging - I also built a prototype
>>>>> based on
>>>>> Derby. I am happy to say, that our management has almost
>>>>> decided on
>>>>> Derby, subject to legal approval for the licensing aspects.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah thats the kicker.
>>> I'm not a lawyer, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
>>>
>>> If you use Derby embedded in your app, you have to also ship a
>>> copy of
>>> the derby source code with your app. Note: If your app is
>>> actually a
>>> modification to Derby, then you have to publish the source code
>>> of your
>>> app. And this is where it gets tricky.
>>>
>>
>> Huh? It sounds like you are talking about Gnu Public License, not
>> Apache 2.0 license. I'm not a lawyer either, and you do need to
>> check
>> the license, but as I understand it, you are free to redistribute
>> binaries as you see fit, and source code of neither Derby nor your
>> application need to be provided. You can also take Derby and
>> modify it
>> as your needs fit and are free to either put these changes back into
>> Apache Derby or not.
>>
>> David
>>
>
> Errr yeah, probably. I was typing this as I was watching the SOX rule!
>
> Yeah,
> I went back and read Apache 2.0.
> Very interesting reading.
> And no, its not compatible with GPL. (Again talk to a lawyer. ;-)
True, but who cares? The Apache license is much more liberal than GPL
or even LGPL.
>
> Essentially you are correct. All you need to include is the notice
> that you
> used Apache code in your product and follow the instructions and
> you're free
> to do with it what you want.
"If" you include notices then you need to include the notice that you
used Apache code.
>
> This would also explain why I see so many folks from IBM and SUN
> here. ;-)
> (TANSTAAFL still applies. Hopefully McNeally, and Mills remember
> this.... )
>
> So essentially, anything is fair game. The only draw back is that
> if you
> wanted to do some cool work, any corporation could just take your
> IP and
> apply it in their own products.
Not at all. You are free to license the derived work under any
license you choose.
>
> For example, if one were to create a really cool method for
> optimizing query
> performance and adds it to Derby, IBM or Oracle could take that and
> use it in
> their other products.
No, there is no requirement that you even publish your changes.
> The only way to protect against that would be to
> create your own distribution tree and as each new version of Derby
> that comes
> out, you would have to merge it against your tree.
If you want to use Derby with proprietary and non-Apache license
terms, of course you would create a distribution that includes your
modifications. But you could choose the timing of when you re-
synchronized with the Derby distribution.
>
> Bottom line. Its best to use Derby, as it, and if you wanted to
> extend Derby,
> write your own Java Database. ;-)
I don't know where this conclusion came from. The Apache license is
very liberal for developers who just want to use Derby as is as well
as for developers who want to change it just a bit, as well as for
developers who want to radically change some part of it.
I'd really suggest a competent legal authority review this with you.
Craig
>
> Interesting....
>
> --
> Michael Segel
> Principal
> MSCC
> (312) 952-8175
>
Re: FW: [Fwd: Re: Are you happy with Derby?]
Posted by "Michael J. Segel" <ms...@segel.com>.
On Thursday 27 October 2005 00:00, David W. Van Couvering wrote:
> Michael J. Segel wrote:
> > On Wednesday 26 October 2005 17:44, Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> >>Raji Sridar wrote:
> >>>Hi Michael,
> >>>
> >>>Your opinion was very encouraging - I also built a prototype based on
> >>>Derby. I am happy to say, that our management has almost decided on
> >>>Derby, subject to legal approval for the licensing aspects.
> >
> > Yeah thats the kicker.
> > I'm not a lawyer, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
> >
> > If you use Derby embedded in your app, you have to also ship a copy of
> > the derby source code with your app. Note: If your app is actually a
> > modification to Derby, then you have to publish the source code of your
> > app. And this is where it gets tricky.
>
> Huh? It sounds like you are talking about Gnu Public License, not
> Apache 2.0 license. I'm not a lawyer either, and you do need to check
> the license, but as I understand it, you are free to redistribute
> binaries as you see fit, and source code of neither Derby nor your
> application need to be provided. You can also take Derby and modify it
> as your needs fit and are free to either put these changes back into
> Apache Derby or not.
>
> David
Errr yeah, probably. I was typing this as I was watching the SOX rule!
Yeah,
I went back and read Apache 2.0.
Very interesting reading.
And no, its not compatible with GPL. (Again talk to a lawyer. ;-)
Essentially you are correct. All you need to include is the notice that you
used Apache code in your product and follow the instructions and you're free
to do with it what you want.
This would also explain why I see so many folks from IBM and SUN here. ;-)
(TANSTAAFL still applies. Hopefully McNeally, and Mills remember this.... )
So essentially, anything is fair game. The only draw back is that if you
wanted to do some cool work, any corporation could just take your IP and
apply it in their own products.
For example, if one were to create a really cool method for optimizing query
performance and adds it to Derby, IBM or Oracle could take that and use it in
their other products. The only way to protect against that would be to
create your own distribution tree and as each new version of Derby that comes
out, you would have to merge it against your tree.
Bottom line. Its best to use Derby, as it, and if you wanted to extend Derby,
write your own Java Database. ;-)
Interesting....
--
Michael Segel
Principal
MSCC
(312) 952-8175
Re: FW: [Fwd: Re: Are you happy with Derby?]
Posted by "David W. Van Couvering" <Da...@Sun.COM>.
Michael J. Segel wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 October 2005 17:44, Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>
>>Raji Sridar wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Michael,
>>>
>>>Your opinion was very encouraging - I also built a prototype based on
>>>Derby. I am happy to say, that our management has almost decided on
>>>Derby, subject to legal approval for the licensing aspects.
>>>
>
> Yeah thats the kicker.
> I'm not a lawyer, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
>
> If you use Derby embedded in your app, you have to also ship a copy of the
> derby source code with your app. Note: If your app is actually a
> modification to Derby, then you have to publish the source code of your app.
> And this is where it gets tricky.
Huh? It sounds like you are talking about Gnu Public License, not
Apache 2.0 license. I'm not a lawyer either, and you do need to check
the license, but as I understand it, you are free to redistribute
binaries as you see fit, and source code of neither Derby nor your
application need to be provided. You can also take Derby and modify it
as your needs fit and are free to either put these changes back into
Apache Derby or not.
David
Re: FW: [Fwd: Re: Are you happy with Derby?]
Posted by "Michael J. Segel" <ms...@segel.com>.
On Wednesday 26 October 2005 17:44, Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> Raji Sridar wrote:
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > Your opinion was very encouraging - I also built a prototype based on
> > Derby. I am happy to say, that our management has almost decided on
> > Derby, subject to legal approval for the licensing aspects.
> >
Yeah thats the kicker.
I'm not a lawyer, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
If you use Derby embedded in your app, you have to also ship a copy of the
derby source code with your app. Note: If your app is actually a
modification to Derby, then you have to publish the source code of your app.
And this is where it gets tricky.
Hypothetical Situation #1:
You're embedding Derby in to your IP telephone switch to track call
information. You do not modify the source code of Derby and use as is.
In this situation, you are required to include the Derby source on your
distribution CD-Rom.
Hypothetical Situation #2:
You're building a new indexing strategy to allow you to use standard Derby
indexes, and one for full text search. You then embed this in to your web
server software.
In this situation, you need to include the Derby source code, along with your
modifications. That is to say, you need to make your IP public and release
under GPL.
Hypothetical Situation #3:
Instead of creating a second index, you create a method for allowing
individuals to attach their own indexes to Derby and you extend the SQL to
allow an end user to specify which index to use. You then embed this in your
web server along with a proprietary full text index.
In this situation, you have to make public the code which modifies Derby. You
do not need to GPL your proprietary index technology.
Sorry to go in to a lot of detail on this. And of course, I may be wrong cause
I did too much brain damage from OTC's bath tub gin... ;-) This requirement
of GPL is something that may scare people off from using GPL or may lead to
future potential litigation. This is why you will see things released with
multiple licensing agreements. MySQL for example is released under a dual
license....
So be careful. ;-)
You may want to consider talking to IBM about licensing Cloudscape... ;-)
> > We plan to use Derby as an embedded RDBMS in our Network Management
> > Application. The data stored in Derby will be typical network management
> > data pertaining to the inventory, fault and performance aspects of
> > network elements.
> >
> > With this mind, I would like a clarification:
> >
> > If an external application would like to extract this data for
> > correlation with the typical customer data, the general way will be to
> > use ij and proceed. The double booting issue will prevent this. What are
> > all the possible workarounds for the double booting issue? Can you
> > please give me the required pointers?
>
I would not recommend ij as a tool for this.
Its a dumb (simple), generic tool, which will probably bite you in the ass
down the road. It would be better to think about the use cases and then
write a specific tool that will handle potential exceptions better, and
possibly handle security better.
> You can also embed the network server in your application, either using
> code or just setting a single property. This then allows remote access
> over tcp/ip to your database, while you application continues to access
> Derby via the embedded driver.
>
Yes. This is probably a good design. You will definitely need to think about
remote access and some basic security.
> The clients access derby using the client driver, either using JDBC or ij.
>
Skip ij.
Again, I'm not bashing ij, its just that from a design perspective there are
considerations which would suggest that custom code in place of ij would be a
better choice.
> For the picture look at pages/slides 53 & 54 of this:
>
> http://db.apache.org/derby/binaries/djd_derby_intro.pdf
>
> Doc links at:
>
> http://db.apache.org/derby/docs/10.1/adminguide/
>
> > Is there any potential issue when multiple copies of Derby runs in the
> > same PC (Within the same application or within different applications)?
>
> No issues. You may want to select your own tcp/ip port for the network
> server rather than using the default.
>
> Dan.
Uhm.... Actually I would disagree. There are always issues when you're
designing software. Interestingly enough, Dan points out the issue of tcp/ip
port selection.... ;-)
The simple answer is that you *can* have multiple copies of Derby running on
the same machine.
The longer answer is that for each copy of Derby, you will have a certain
amount of overhead or system resources allocated to that specific copy.
So how large is your Derby database? How efficient is your app, and how large
is your sandbox?
The point being is that these are all considerations when designing an app.
You also bring up an interesting issue. Why would you want to have a single
app run multiple copies of Derby? (I can think of a couple of designs but
you'd have to be really paranoid to justify them... ;-)
But hey, what to I know?
Some may say that I'm a bigger clown than OTC. ;-) (Its an Informix
thing... ;-)
-Mikey
--
Michael Segel
Principal
MSCC
(312) 952-8175
Re: FW: [Fwd: Re: Are you happy with Derby?]
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@debrunners.com>.
Raji Sridar wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> Your opinion was very encouraging - I also built a prototype based on Derby.
> I am happy to say, that our management has almost decided on Derby,
> subject to legal approval for the licensing aspects.
>
> We plan to use Derby as an embedded RDBMS in our Network Management
> Application. The data stored in Derby will be typical network management
> data pertaining to the inventory, fault and performance aspects of
> network elements.
>
> With this mind, I would like a clarification:
>
> If an external application would like to extract this data for
> correlation with the typical customer data, the general way will be to
> use ij and proceed. The double booting issue will prevent this. What are
> all the possible workarounds for the double booting issue? Can you
> please give me the required pointers?
You can also embed the network server in your application, either using
code or just setting a single property. This then allows remote access
over tcp/ip to your database, while you application continues to access
Derby via the embedded driver.
The clients access derby using the client driver, either using JDBC or ij.
For the picture look at pages/slides 53 & 54 of this:
http://db.apache.org/derby/binaries/djd_derby_intro.pdf
Doc links at:
http://db.apache.org/derby/docs/10.1/adminguide/
> Is there any potential issue when multiple copies of Derby runs in the
> same PC (Within the same application or within different applications)?
No issues. You may want to select your own tcp/ip port for the network
server rather than using the default.
Dan.
>