Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Change in License for Berkeley DB

meshedinsights.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 79 posts

Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB

#11

Post by davidw »

ricardobeat wrote: post #10
microtonal wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So fork it from the older version - that is still available under the old license.

Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB

#12

Post by ra »

beedogs wrote: post #7

What 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.

It's a slight bummer but not really a big problem. If the community doesn't like the license it'll just fork and we'll end up with a similar situation to MySQL and MariaDB.

i.e. we're better off in the end. Open source lives because of it's contributors and can not be killed off by a corporation.

EDIT: Removed my 'opinion' because it's not important :-)

Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB

#13

Post by smnrchrds »

In Python 2.x there was a module for Berkley DB which is removed in Python 3 (bsddb module). I'm curious that since Berkley DB has always had a strong copyright license and it was not PSFL, how things worked legally. There is no mention in the docs[1] that if you use an import bsddb in your code you have to make it open-source. When they decided to remove it there was no mention of the license, just difficulty of maintenance[2].

So, was it possible to use Berkley DB without releasing your code as open-source before this change or was it because no one thought it was necessary to mention it in the docs?

[1] http://docs.python.org/2/library/bsddb.html [2] http://jessenoller.com/2008/09/04/stirred-up-dem-bees-should...

Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB

#14

Post by DrJokepu »

I don't understand the sentiments in this thread. They own the thing. They do whatever they want with it. They have paid good money for it. Yet they have chosen to give it away as free software (with a license even Richard Stallman and the other FSF folks would approve). What is this sense of entitlement here on HN?

Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB

#15

Post by microtonal »

ricardobeat wrote: post #10
microtonal wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, that's what I said, it's the definition of copyleft.

For most companies the open source version was not acceptable anyway. E.g. most customers with sensitive information (such as government organizations) require on-site firewalled installations of your software anyway. So, you either pony up the relatively high per-CPU cost, or use a less restrictively licensed alternative such as leveldb.

This change will mostly make a difference for web applications. But my point was that Berkeley DB was already licensed quite restrictively before, contrary to some people's beliefs.

Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB

#17

Post by nknighthb »

DrJokepu wrote: post #14

I don't understand the sentiments in this thread. They own the thing. They do whatever they want with it. They have paid good money for it. Yet they have chosen to give it away as free software (with a license even Richard Stallman and the other FSF folks would approve). What is this sense of entitlement here on HN?

Your comment demonstrates the difference between legal obligations and social obligations. Oracle has forced their way into and destroyed multiple communities. They have that legal right, but we also have the right to dislike them for it.

Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB

#18

Post by toyg »

reeses wrote: post #9
beedogs wrote: post #7

What 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.

As TFA says, the problem is the anti-tivoization clause, which creates issues for web developers, issues which weren't there with the previous licenses and that should push more people to buy commercial licenses as insurance.
Post reply on HN