A Change in License for Berkeley DB • Hacker News Board

Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB

#31

Post by justincormack » Sat, Jul 06, 2013, 9:49 AM UTC

smnrchrds wrote: post #13

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 mai…

It was only possible if you bought a commercial license from Oracle. You do check licenses for everything you import don't you - you should!

Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB

#32

Post by icebraining » Sat, Jul 06, 2013, 9:52 AM UTC

ExpiredLink wrote: post #24

Why do people complain when Oracle changes the license to a Free license? Just kidding. Denounce Oracle but also denounce the "Free" software zealots who invented unfair licenses like AGPL.

What makes the license "unfair"?

Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB

#33

Post by DrJokepu » Sat, Jul 06, 2013, 9:53 AM UTC

valisystem wrote: post #22

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?

It is not the change of license in itself that makes people think it is a questionable move, it is the strategic nature of this decision. When building a solution/product, you have to choose the components you use, and invest in it, in time and sometimes money, and its technical and legal specificities can have strong implications on your solution. License change is a hazard than can happen, and it is also one the ha…

BerkeleyDB was distributed with the "Sleepycat License" since 1996 which is similar to GPL in terms of permissiveness so it's not like BerkeleyDB has been distributed with a permissive license in the past. If the Sleepycat License suits your needs but for some reason AGPL doesn't, why don't you just take the last Sleepycat-licensed version and keep using that? It still does everything it did when it was released. People could even fork it and make improvements to it.

Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB

#34

Post by DrJokepu » Sat, Jul 06, 2013, 10:03 AM UTC

frewsxcv wrote: post #29

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?

No one (as far as I see) is arguing what they're doing is illegal, they're just being dicks

How is giving it away as open source software a dick move?

Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB

#35

Post by tome » Sat, Jul 06, 2013, 10:03 AM UTC

makomk wrote: post #23

reeses wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Affero GPL has a clause requiring the operators of network servers that use AGPL code to provide full source of the network server. Berkley DB is used in, amongst other places, Subversion - so when they next do a distro upgrade in a few months, a whole bunch of developers are going to find they're no longer license compliant and have no easy way of becoming license compliant.

Subversion is Apache licensed, so I fail to see how this would be a problem.

Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB

#36

Post by vorg » Sat, Jul 06, 2013, 10:07 AM UTC

schrijver wrote: post #21

digismack wrote: post #20

If you change a software license, are users of that software bound to the new terms if they don't "update" to the version of the software released with the updated terms?

No, you can’t apply licenses retroactively—if you have a version with the old license it is still under that license.

But you can stop supporting the older versions, say, by only applying fixed bugs to the newer versions.

Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB

#37

Post by tome » Sat, Jul 06, 2013, 10:12 AM UTC

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?

> What is this sense of entitlement here on HN?

HN (as a general rule) doesn't support free (as in speech) software.

It's interesting to contrast Oracle with webapp providers who haved move from free to paid models. HN (as a general rule) supports the latter and responds to the complainers with "you shouldn't have expected anything from a product you weren't paying for".

Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB

#38

Post by vorg » Sat, Jul 06, 2013, 10:22 AM UTC

mjn wrote: post #28

ricardobeat wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That more or less just brings the license up to date with the original intent. You used to typically have to distribute apps if you wanted end-users to run them. Now you can half-distribute the app by only distributing the client half to browsers, and claim that that doesn't constitute redistribution. The AGPL, on the other hand, defines that kind of half-distribution as distribution.

> you can half-distribute the app by only distributing the client half to browsers

Calling the client portion of the code of an SaaS application "the client half" is a stretch. 1% is a better estimate, and "1%-distribution" is a better word than "half-distribution". The client portion of code has its source distributed at the same time as when it runs on the browser.

> That just brings the license up to date with the original intent

The only clue to intent users of software have is the specific wording of the license. Changing the license cripples the software. How do we know the original intent wasn't to bait users in with an wrongly used license, then change it later on?

Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB

#39

Post by Yver » Sat, Jul 06, 2013, 10:26 AM UTC

chenster wrote: post #8

Wow, 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.

Oh that AGPL cash cow... Damn you Richard Stallman and your capitalistic ways!

Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB

#40

Post by stock_toaster » Sat, Jul 06, 2013, 10:26 AM UTC

dvirsky wrote: post #26

chenster wrote: post #8

Wow, 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.

how does this affect Python users? Berkeley is part of the default standard library and is installed by all Python users everywhere.

Wasn't it removed in python3, and deprecated since 2.6?