| Paul Franz 2005-07-24, 5:45 pm |
| 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:
>
>
>
> 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-E1rGyZxLSgzby3iVrkZq2A@public.gmane.org
>
>
|