Niclas Hedhman wrote:

>On Tuesday 26 July 2005 07:56, Michael A. Olson wrote:
>
> 
>
>Ok. And Apache projects can not use GPLed products for the same reasons. (A
nd
>according to FSF GPLed projects can't use Apache licensed products, due to
>some patent grant issues...)
>
>
This is unfortunately true.  However GPLed code can use Apache licenced
products I thought.   INAL so I would not know.  Is it actually the case?
 
>
>Great. I don't think anyone here is questioning the honorable intents of
>Sleepycat. This is purely a principle of Open/Free idealogies, of which one
>or the other is not "more right", just different and not legally compatible
.
>
>
>
Indeed! I personally have a profound respect for the folks at
SleepyCat.  They helped us considerably while ApacheDS was known as the
LDAPd server at sourceforge.net.  We at that time used the JNI
interfaces to Berkeley DB the C edition.  They were very cooperative
with us in giving us the support they would give to paying clients.  I
would imagine the people at SleepyCat need to eat, pay their mortgage ..
and so on.
 
>
>That may be true for the majority of users, up until the point where the
>project is no longer maintained. However, ASF believes it is not up to us t
o
>decide what the downstream users want to do with the software.
>
>
>
Also true.  The ASF tries to maintain as much liberty as possible for
our users whether they be commercial companies with closed sources or
open source developers.

>P.S. Mental Note to Incubation members; This slipped through Incubation, so
 I
>think we need to tighten the checks over there. Each project listing all
>external dependencies and which license they are all in, in a table, perhap
s.
>
>
Nothing slipped through incubation Niclas.  We switched from using
Berkeley DB C edition to JDBM and have no dependencies what so ever on
external software with conflicting licenses.

Alex

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]