You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@directory.apache.org by Florian Weimer <fw...@deneb.enyo.de> on 2005/07/24 00:04:10 UTC
Re: [bdbje] [Licensing] Open Source verses Commercial Use
* Alex Karasulu:
> Company A decides to integrate Apache Directory Server which now uses JE
> into their product which they sell.
>
> Does the license for JE require company A to have to license JE from
> SleepyCat?
If they don't provide source code to their product under some kind of
free software license, the answer seems to be yes.
Re: [bdbje] [Licensing] Open Source verses Commercial Use
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
On 7/24/2005 4:40 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
>Hi !
>
>On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 07:04 -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
>
>>>The Sleepycat license is that if you don't have total source
>>>(essentially GPL) then you pay Sleepycat a fee
>>>
>>>
>>>Personally I'd recommend an approach where you have an option
>>>
>>>
>>There is no such option. JE is a dead end. We do not pass along additional
>>restrictions beyond the ALv2 (which means essentially no restrictions).
>>
>>
>
>I think that the best thing to do is validate backends without
>delivering them. There is no issue if you do that. Let's use JDBM as a
>kind of RI, bundled with the ApacheDS package, and let others use
>whatever they want, assuming they will donwload those backends and deal
>with IP issues by themselves.
>
>So we can work with JE, validate that ApacheDS works well with it, using
>an abstraction layer above it, avoiding licenses problem, and tell the
>community : "ApacheDS works well and is fully tested against JE, up to
>you to download JE" (or wathever DB).
>
>
+1 Great idea.
Regards,
Alan
Re: [bdbje] [Licensing] Open Source verses Commercial Use
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@apache.org>.
> >So we can work with JE, validate that ApacheDS works well with it, using
> >an abstraction layer above it, avoiding licenses problem, and tell the
> >community : "ApacheDS works well and is fully tested against JE, up to
> >you to download JE" (or wathever DB).
> >
> >2cts.
> >
> >
> Funny you say this I already made that abstraction layer above it.
>
> Good thinking Emmanuel.
>
> Alex
Abstract layers is a good solution to avoid real lawyers ...
Emmanuel.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Wanadoo vous informe que cet e-mail a ete controle par l'anti-virus mail.
> Aucun virus connu a ce jour par nos services n'a ete detecte.
>
>
>
Re: [bdbje] [Licensing] Open Source verses Commercial Use
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
>Hi !
>
>On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 07:04 -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
>
>>>The Sleepycat license is that if you don't have total source
>>>(essentially GPL) then you pay Sleepycat a fee
>>>
>>>
>>>Personally I'd recommend an approach where you have an option
>>>
>>>
>>There is no such option. JE is a dead end. We do not pass along additional
>>restrictions beyond the ALv2 (which means essentially no restrictions).
>>
>>
>
>I think that the best thing to do is validate backends without
>delivering them. There is no issue if you do that. Let's use JDBM as a
>kind of RI, bundled with the ApacheDS package, and let others use
>whatever they want, assuming they will donwload those backends and deal
>with IP issues by themselves.
>
>So we can work with JE, validate that ApacheDS works well with it, using
>an abstraction layer above it, avoiding licenses problem, and tell the
>community : "ApacheDS works well and is fully tested against JE, up to
>you to download JE" (or wathever DB).
>
>2cts.
>
>
Funny you say this I already made that abstraction layer above it.
Good thinking Emmanuel.
Alex
RE: [bdbje] [Licensing] Open Source verses Commercial Use
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
> Let's use JDBM as a kind of RI, bundled with the ApacheDS
> package, and let others use whatever they want, assuming
> they will donwload those backends and deal with IP issues
> by themselves.
+1
That's what JAMES does with the file system repositories, and we'll do the same with Derby soon.
--- Noel
RE: [bdbje] [Licensing] Open Source verses Commercial Use
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@apache.org>.
Hi !
On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 07:04 -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > The Sleepycat license is that if you don't have total source
> > (essentially GPL) then you pay Sleepycat a fee
>
> > Personally I'd recommend an approach where you have an option
>
> There is no such option. JE is a dead end. We do not pass along additional
> restrictions beyond the ALv2 (which means essentially no restrictions).
I think that the best thing to do is validate backends without
delivering them. There is no issue if you do that. Let's use JDBM as a
kind of RI, bundled with the ApacheDS package, and let others use
whatever they want, assuming they will donwload those backends and deal
with IP issues by themselves.
So we can work with JE, validate that ApacheDS works well with it, using
an abstraction layer above it, avoiding licenses problem, and tell the
community : "ApacheDS works well and is fully tested against JE, up to
you to download JE" (or wathever DB).
2cts.
Emmanuel Lécharny
RE: [bdbje] [Licensing] Open Source verses Commercial Use
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> The Sleepycat license is that if you don't have total source
> (essentially GPL) then you pay Sleepycat a fee
> Personally I'd recommend an approach where you have an option
There is no such option. JE is a dead end. We do not pass along additional
restrictions beyond the ALv2 (which means essentially no restrictions).
--- Noel
Re: [bdbje] [Licensing] Open Source verses Commercial Use
Posted by Mark Wilcox <ma...@gmail.com>.
The Sleepycat license is that if you don't have total source
(essentially GPL) then you pay Sleepycat a fee (the code is
essentially dual-licensed).
Personally I'd recommend an approach where you have an option - use JE
by preference because I'd expect it to be high-quality with the
ability to use another perhaps less quality implementation.
I suspect (based on the type of work OctetString does - which is very
similar to this project) - many implementations will use the code as a
virtual-directory engine. That is use the LDAP interfaces to provide
access to external DB's (like SAP or PeopleSoft) that are not normally
LDAP ready.
Mark
On 7/23/05, Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
> > Florian Weimer wrote:
> >
> >> * Alex Karasulu:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Company A decides to integrate Apache Directory Server which now
> >>> uses JE into their product which they sell.
> >>>
> >>> Does the license for JE require company A to have to license JE from
> >>> SleepyCat?
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> If they don't provide source code to their product under some kind of
> >> free software license, the answer seems to be yes.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > So all the source. including the product code must be open?
>
>
> Please disregard I prematurely hit send before completing this email.
>
> Alex
>
>
Re: [bdbje] [Licensing] Open Source verses Commercial Use
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> * Alex Karasulu:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Company A decides to integrate Apache Directory Server which now
>>> uses JE into their product which they sell.
>>>
>>> Does the license for JE require company A to have to license JE from
>>> SleepyCat?
>>>
>>
>>
>> If they don't provide source code to their product under some kind of
>> free software license, the answer seems to be yes.
>>
>>
>>
> So all the source. including the product code must be open?
Please disregard I prematurely hit send before completing this email.
Alex
Re: [bdbje] [Licensing] Open Source verses Commercial Use
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
Florian Weimer wrote:
>* Alex Karasulu:
>
>
>
>>Company A decides to integrate Apache Directory Server which now uses JE
>>into their product which they sell.
>>
>>Does the license for JE require company A to have to license JE from
>>SleepyCat?
>>
>>
>
>If they don't provide source code to their product under some kind of
>free software license, the answer seems to be yes.
>
>
>
So all the source. including the product code must be open?
Alex
Re: [bdbje] [Licensing] Open Source verses Commercial Use
Posted by Marc Boorshtein <mb...@gmail.com>.
+1
hsqldb is not very well suited as a directory. it's easy to setup but
data is stored either as a "script" or in a csv file. there are a few
directories that store information using RDBMs (oracle and ibm), so if
you have the inclination it's been done before.
marc
On 7/24/05, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> > Maybe the HSQLDB and its license would be better than sleepycat ones
>
> *IF* you want to use a SQL database, I'd suggest looking at Derby. But I
> was not of the impression that we did for these purposes.
>
> --- Noel
>
>
RE: [bdbje] [Licensing] Open Source verses Commercial Use
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> Maybe the HSQLDB and its license would be better than sleepycat ones
*IF* you want to use a SQL database, I'd suggest looking at Derby. But I
was not of the impression that we did for these purposes.
--- Noel
Re: [bdbje] [Licensing] Open Source verses Commercial Use
Posted by Tony Blanchard <bl...@wanadoo.fr>.
Maybe the HSQLDB and its license would be better than sleepycat ones :
http://hsqldb.org/web/hsqlLicense.html
Maybe it is a little bit more complex tha JE ...
Tony
Niclas Hedhman a écrit :
>On Sunday 24 July 2005 11:54, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
>
>>>>Does the license for JE require company A to have to license JE from
>>>>SleepyCat?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>If they don't provide source code to their product under some kind of
>>>free software license, the answer seems to be yes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>So all the source. including the commercial versions of the product must
>>be open? If so we cannot use JE then unfortunately. We cannot require
>>every company that embeds ApacheDS into their product to have to open
>>the source to their commercial products.
>>
>>
>
>IANAL, but a similar discussion has recently been up on the legal-discuss@
>mailing list.
>
>Essentially, at the moment, ASF projects can not use/distribute something that
>adds additional constraint on the downstream users, than the current Apache
>license. Hence, the restrictions on LGPL/GPL and other Open/Free licenses
>that we can depend on.
>
>Now, you mentioned elsewhere Subversion, and considering that many of the
>contributors are Apache folks, and ASF is one of the key promoters of Svn "in
>real life", doesn't it strike you as "odd" why Subversion wasn't developed
>within ASF?? Could it be related?
>
>In any event, if there are GPL-like options, one choice is to create an
>external project elsewhere, which contains the constraints and that project
>"pulls in" the Apache DS, and that would more or less require an additional
>solution (current?) within the Apache DS project, so it is not 'incomplete'.
>
>Any "exception" from Sleepycat, will most likely require a CCLA/ICLA on the
>codebase in question, to enable the standard downstream usages of Apache
>codebases.
>
>Cheers
>Niclas
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [bdbje] [Licensing] Open Source verses Commercial Use
Posted by David Boreham <da...@bozemanpass.com>.
Mark Wilcox wrote:
>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.
>
>
I agree. But I'm not familiar with the Apache licensing thinking,
so my opinion doesn't count for much.
I do think that the Apache DS needs to 'work' with no database per se
(to handle cases like the LDAP Proxy and the NT4 Virtual Directory
we built for Fedora DS, for example). I'd prefer to see Apache DS's
core config stored in flat files, to remove any dependency on a database.
OTOH, I also think that JE would make a great backend database for
Apache DS when it's used in a 'traditional' LDAP server scenario: holding
its own data.
WFIW I don't like the idea of using a SQL-based shim layer such as
JDBC --- there's a significant impedance mismatch between the
requirements of an LDAP back end and SQL.
Re: [bdbje] [Licensing] Open Source verses Commercial Use
Posted by Mark Wilcox <ma...@gmail.com>.
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 <da...@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...
>
>
>
Re: [bdbje] [Licensing] Open Source verses Commercial Use
Posted by David Boreham <da...@bozemanpass.com>.
Paul Franz wrote:
> Can you point me to a location where I can found where "Redistribution
> By Proxy" is defined.
Sorry I can't, beyond the definition I already gave (moving the point
of integration between some closed-source product and some open
source component upon which it depends out to the end user's computer).
Any lawyer that deals with software IPR should be able to advise you on
the details however.
Re: [bdbje] [Licensing] Open Source verses Commercial Use
Posted by Paul Franz <th...@comcast.net>.
Can you point me to a location where I can found where "Redistribution
By Proxy" is defined.
Paul Franz
David Boreham 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...
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------
> To remove yourself from this list, send an
> email to bdbje-unsubscribe@sleepycat.com
>
>
Re: [bdbje] [Licensing] Open Source verses Commercial Use
Posted by David Boreham <da...@bozemanpass.com>.
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...
Re: [bdbje] [Licensing] Open Source verses Commercial Use
Posted by Paul Franz <th...@comcast.net>.
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?
Paul Franz
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Sunday 24 July 2005 11:54, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
>>>>Does the license for JE require company A to have to license JE from
>>>>SleepyCat?
>>>>
>>>
>>>If they don't provide source code to their product under some kind of
>>>free software license, the answer seems to be yes.
>>>
>>
>>So all the source. including the commercial versions of the product must
>>be open? If so we cannot use JE then unfortunately. We cannot require
>>every company that embeds ApacheDS into their product to have to open
>>the source to their commercial products.
>
>
> IANAL, but a similar discussion has recently been up on the legal-discuss@
> mailing list.
>
> Essentially, at the moment, ASF projects can not use/distribute something that
> adds additional constraint on the downstream users, than the current Apache
> license. Hence, the restrictions on LGPL/GPL and other Open/Free licenses
> that we can depend on.
>
> Now, you mentioned elsewhere Subversion, and considering that many of the
> contributors are Apache folks, and ASF is one of the key promoters of Svn "in
> real life", doesn't it strike you as "odd" why Subversion wasn't developed
> within ASF?? Could it be related?
>
> In any event, if there are GPL-like options, one choice is to create an
> external project elsewhere, which contains the constraints and that project
> "pulls in" the Apache DS, and that would more or less require an additional
> solution (current?) within the Apache DS project, so it is not 'incomplete'.
>
> Any "exception" from Sleepycat, will most likely require a CCLA/ICLA on the
> codebase in question, to enable the standard downstream usages of Apache
> codebases.
>
> Cheers
> Niclas
>
>
> ------------------------------------------
> To remove yourself from this list, send an
> email to bdbje-unsubscribe@sleepycat.com
>
>
Re: [bdbje] [Licensing] Open Source verses Commercial Use
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Sunday 24 July 2005 11:54, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> >>Does the license for JE require company A to have to license JE from
> >>SleepyCat?
> >>
> >
> >If they don't provide source code to their product under some kind of
> >free software license, the answer seems to be yes.
> >
>
> So all the source. including the commercial versions of the product must
> be open? If so we cannot use JE then unfortunately. We cannot require
> every company that embeds ApacheDS into their product to have to open
> the source to their commercial products.
IANAL, but a similar discussion has recently been up on the legal-discuss@
mailing list.
Essentially, at the moment, ASF projects can not use/distribute something that
adds additional constraint on the downstream users, than the current Apache
license. Hence, the restrictions on LGPL/GPL and other Open/Free licenses
that we can depend on.
Now, you mentioned elsewhere Subversion, and considering that many of the
contributors are Apache folks, and ASF is one of the key promoters of Svn "in
real life", doesn't it strike you as "odd" why Subversion wasn't developed
within ASF?? Could it be related?
In any event, if there are GPL-like options, one choice is to create an
external project elsewhere, which contains the constraints and that project
"pulls in" the Apache DS, and that would more or less require an additional
solution (current?) within the Apache DS project, so it is not 'incomplete'.
Any "exception" from Sleepycat, will most likely require a CCLA/ICLA on the
codebase in question, to enable the standard downstream usages of Apache
codebases.
Cheers
Niclas
Re: [bdbje] [Licensing] Open Source verses Commercial Use
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
Florian Weimer wrote:
>* Alex Karasulu:
>
>
>
>>Company A decides to integrate Apache Directory Server which now uses JE
>>into their product which they sell.
>>
>>Does the license for JE require company A to have to license JE from
>>SleepyCat?
>>
>>
>
>If they don't provide source code to their product under some kind of
>free software license, the answer seems to be yes.
>
>
So all the source. including the commercial versions of the product must
be open? If so we cannot use JE then unfortunately. We cannot require
every company that embeds ApacheDS into their product to have to open
the source to their commercial products.
Alex
Re: [bdbje] [Licensing] Open Source verses Commercial Use
Posted by Marc Boorshtein <mb...@gmail.com>.
ahh, thats probably the loophole that distros use, you can get the
source to everything.
Marc
On 7/23/05, Florian Weimer <fw...@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
> * Alex Karasulu:
>
> > Company A decides to integrate Apache Directory Server which now uses JE
> > into their product which they sell.
> >
> > Does the license for JE require company A to have to license JE from
> > SleepyCat?
>
> If they don't provide source code to their product under some kind of
> free software license, the answer seems to be yes.
>