A Change in License for Berkeley DB
meshedinsights.com
A Change in License for Berkeley DB
1–10 of 79 posts
Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB
#2While I don't have made up my mind completely about AGPL but lean to liking it, changing to it for an infrastructure library, is really a backstabbing move.
Nice to see a company so consistently living up to its reputation.
And one simply must appreciate the elegant irony of using a strong copyleft license as a dagger.
Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB
#3While I don't have made up my mind completely about AGPL but lean to liking it, changing to it for an infrastructure library, is really a backstabbing move. Nice to see a company so consistently living up to its reputation. And one simply must appreciate the elegant irony of using a strong copyleft license as a dagger.
> And one simply must appreciate the elegant irony of using a strong copyleft license as a dagger.
That's always been one of the ways to make money from free software. Mysql did the same thing, and I think Qt did as well at some point in its history. If I recall correctly, even RMS sort of approves of it.
Downvoters: go read some history, there's nothing factually incorrect in what I wrote above. The bozo proliferation seems to continue unabated here:-(
Here's RMS himself: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions
Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB
#4While I don't have made up my mind completely about AGPL but lean to liking it, changing to it for an infrastructure library, is really a backstabbing move. Nice to see a company so consistently living up to its reputation. And one simply must appreciate the elegant irony of using a strong copyleft license as a dagger.
> And one simply must appreciate the elegant irony of using a strong copyleft license as a dagger. That's always been one of the ways to make money from free software. Mysql did the same thing, and I think Qt did as well at some point in its history. If I recall correctly, even RMS sort of approves of it. Downvoters: go read some history, there's nothing factually incorrect in what I wrote above. The bozo proliferati…
The difference being that these projects had the restrictive licenses from early on. They did not change from permissive (and in the context of web service infrastructure GPL is actually a permissive license) to something more restrictive.
On the contrary Qt changed the license from GPL to LGPL what definitely helped the proliferation (and the survival after the Nokia disaster).
MySQL ... well moving this to AGPL would give MariaDB the final push it needs (if it still needs one). So they just let it rot.
Too bad there was no equivalent project for BerkeleyDB.
Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB
#5Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And one simply must appreciate the elegant irony of using a strong copyleft license as a dagger. That's always been one of the ways to make money from free software. Mysql did the same thing, and I think Qt did as well at some point in its history. If I recall correctly, even RMS sort of approves of it. Downvoters: go read some history, there's nothing factually incorrect in what I wrote above. The bozo proliferati…
The difference being that these projects had the restrictive licenses from early on. They did not change from permissive (and in the context of web service infrastructure GPL is actually a permissive license) to something more restrictive. On the contrary Qt changed the license from GPL to LGPL what definitely helped the proliferation (and the survival after the Nokia disaster). MySQL ... well moving this to AGPL wou…
You can always fork from the last version that had a license you found acceptable.
Also, a relatively restrictive (not BSD!) license has been a feature of Berkeley DB for a while:
Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB
#6While I don't have made up my mind completely about AGPL but lean to liking it, changing to it for an infrastructure library, is really a backstabbing move. Nice to see a company so consistently living up to its reputation. And one simply must appreciate the elegant irony of using a strong copyleft license as a dagger.
changing to it for an infrastructure library, is really a backstabbing move.
Well, Berkeley DB was already a copyleft library[1] (basically a BSD/MIT-style license with an extra copyleft clause). So, unless you had a commercial DB license, you already had to provide the source code for applications that used it. This 'just' extends it to applications that are used over a network.
[1] From the Berkeley DB license:
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. [...]
Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB
#7What an absolutely horrible company Oracle is. They are without a doubt the biggest enemy to free and open source software, and I'll be glad when they're gone.
Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB
#8Wow, Oracle has did again. Oracle has proven again it is now the single most evil software company out there, surpassing Microsoft. What they are doing is to incrementally convert open source free software into their proprietary cash cow.
Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB
#9What an absolutely horrible company Oracle is. They are without a doubt the biggest enemy to free and open source software, and I'll be glad when they're gone.
I agree with much of this, but mainly on their sales and marketing tactics.
However, what does your rationale for finding them reprehensible have to do with the article? The Affero GPL/GPLv3 is arguably the most open source license available.
Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB
#10While I don't have made up my mind completely about AGPL but lean to liking it, changing to it for an infrastructure library, is really a backstabbing move. Nice to see a company so consistently living up to its reputation. And one simply must appreciate the elegant irony of using a strong copyleft license as a dagger.
changing to it for an infrastructure library, is really a backstabbing move. Well, Berkeley DB was already a copyleft library[1] (basically a BSD/MIT-style license with an extra copyleft clause). So, unless you had a commercial DB license, you already had to provide the source code for applications that used it. This 'just' extends it to applications that are used over a network. [1] From the Berkeley DB license: 3.…
The old license only required providing source code if you redistributed it. The new license requires it even if you never distribute anything, e.g., you use it in the backend of a SaaS app.