A Change in License for Berkeley DB • Hacker News Board

Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB

#61

Post by icebraining » Sat, Jul 06, 2013, 2:58 PM UTC

jasonlotito wrote: post #53

icebraining wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why is that contrast interesting. Most of those webapps were already proprietary, and some of the paid ones are also Free (as in speech), like NewsBlur. They're completely different situations.

The comparison is actually quite apt. In fact, Oracle is doing less harm than many apps that switch to a paid model, or get acquired and shut down. Consider that BDB is still licensed under the GPL. It's just the new releases are released under the AGPL. You can still use the GPL version. When an app switches to a paid model, you aren't left with a choice. So even if you invested time and energy into integrating it i…

Oh, I realize the problems with proprietary software, you're preaching to the choir ;) But I still don't see the point in comparing the two situations.

Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB

#62

Post by tome » Sat, Jul 06, 2013, 2:58 PM UTC

Sanddancer wrote: post #48

tome wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Subversion uses bdb as its backend.

And the Apache licensed Subversion is still compatible with AGPL licensed BDB. What am I missing here?

Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB

#63

Post by pron » Sat, Jul 06, 2013, 2:58 PM UTC

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.

The AGPL requires no such thing. If you use BDB in the backend you don't have to open anything; only if you actually modify the BDB source code.

Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB

#64

Post by pron » Sat, Jul 06, 2013, 3:05 PM UTC

__alexs wrote: post #44

Those people who think this is some sort of enormously evil event that will kill BerkeleyDB because the AGPL is the evilest most restrictive free software license ever should probably read Section 13 here http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html This pretty much only affects you if you are running some weird internal forked version that has upstream merged into it regularly. I don't get the impression that this is a com…

You are absolutely right about the license, but I think you're confusing Oracle with Google. Oracle aren't evil, they just want your money. It's Google that wants to know everything about your life so that it can give you an IV line of ads. Google - evil, Oracle - just greedy :)

Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB

#65

Post by DrJokepu » Sat, Jul 06, 2013, 3:42 PM UTC

Sanddancer wrote: post #59

DrJokepu wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Giving away isn't dickish. However, changing the terms to a license with more expensive terms of conditions is. Because of the requirement of providing source with "modified" versions, you have to now provide a source download with your software, even if you make the most subtle of changes. Furthermore, as most OS distributors patch their version, even using the provided version becomes legally suspect. All of this m…

I understand what your are saying yet I can't help but feel that you guys are being a bit unreasonable. You know what would be a dick move? If they killed the open source version and sued the current users of the open source license with some ridiculous patent claim. That would be a genuinely dickish move worthy of an evil empire such as Oracle. Yet they are doing exactly the opposite of that.

Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB

#66

Post by anon1385 » Sat, Jul 06, 2013, 4:03 PM UTC

pyre wrote: post #58

jasonlotito wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Do you have to start playing that game here? Can't you at least try to contribute in a meaningful way before you start acting like this? Let me do the same to you. > 'evil fat cats' He didn't say "evil fat cats", so why do you feel the need to lie and say he did? Only a worthless troll would use those words, and words like "leeching" in place of discussing what he actually said. So really? Is that what you wa…

> Let me do the same to you. I see that you seem to be attempting to argue from a Moral High Ground. Would you like me to: 1) Remove your Ad Hominem attack? 2) Remove your rude remarks/tone that conflict with your desire for others to be less rude? I'll agree that the 'evil fat cats' remark was probably a bit too far, and I apologize for that. Let me rephrase my comment: I take issue with the view that someone that d…

>The original post was (in so many words) trying to claim that all of the web companies using FOSS software and claiming to 'love Open Source' are being two-faced because none of their own software is release under a GPL license.

This isn't about BSD/MIT style licences vs GPL style. The sources to most web apps are not available under any kind of licence. A few toy projects on github that nobody uses don't counterbalance spending all day working on non-free software. I do think a lot of these toy projects are motivated by a sense of guilt. You go in to work and spend all day working against free software, but you can tell yourself you are on the right side and 'contributing' if you share that script that downloads cat pictures.

Your criticism is the same one that has been made against the GPL countless times. History has proven it wrong: Linux is a huge success, thanks to the GPL.

The GNU GPL is not Mr. Nice Guy. It says "no" to some of the things that people sometimes want to do. There are users who say that this is a bad thing--that the GPL "excludes" some proprietary software developers who "need to be brought into the free software community." But we are not excluding them from our community; they are choosing not to enter. Their decision to make software proprietary is a decision to stay out of our community. Being in our community means joining in cooperation with us; we cannot "bring them into our community" if they don't want to join. What we can do is offer them an inducement to join. The GNU GPL is designed to make an inducement from our existing software: "If you will make your software free, you can use this code." Of course, it won't win 'em all, but it wins some of the time. -- RMS

Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB

#67

Post by pyre » Sat, Jul 06, 2013, 4:32 PM UTC

anon1385 wrote: post #66

pyre wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let me do the same to you. I see that you seem to be attempting to argue from a Moral High Ground. Would you like me to: 1) Remove your Ad Hominem attack? 2) Remove your rude remarks/tone that conflict with your desire for others to be less rude? I'll agree that the 'evil fat cats' remark was probably a bit too far, and I apologize for that. Let me rephrase my comment: I take issue with the view that someone that d…

>The original post was (in so many words) trying to claim that all of the web companies using FOSS software and claiming to 'love Open Source' are being two-faced because none of their own software is release under a GPL license. This isn't about BSD/MIT style licences vs GPL style. The sources to most web apps are not available under any kind of licence. A few toy projects on github that nobody uses don't counterbal…

  | Your criticism is the same one that has been
  | made against the GPL countless times. History has
  | proven it wrong: Linux is a huge success, thanks
  | to the GPL.

I'm curious how "my criticism" is proven wrong by Linux. While Linux does prove that the GPL can work, it is not proof that a hard-line approach to the GPL is useful (especially when it comes to advocacy). Have you ever switched to veganism because of the animal rights activist shouting, "Shame! Shame on you!" on a street corner? "Getting the message out there," isn't very useful if everyone is just ignoring you. At that point, you're just tilting at windmills, and putting in useless effort.

Even your example, Linux, has a leader that is more pragmatic about software licenses than some FOSS hard-liner.

  | I do think a lot of these toy projects are motivated by a
  | sense of guilt.You go in to work and spend all day working
  | against free software, but you can tell yourself you are on
  | the right side and 'contributing' if you share that script
  | that downloads cat pictures.

You're missing the point here:

1) Many people working for companies that don't open source their product contribute significantly to open source projects. E.g.:

- GvR worked for Google which is 'closed source' but I don't think that anyone considers Python a 'toy project on Github.'

- Kenneth Reitz created the awesome Python Requests library and works at Heroku, which doesn't release it's code as open source.

2) Not everyone can create some significant piece of open source software, even if they would like to. What is your dividing line between 'toy project' and 'serious project?'

3) Statements like these don't win people over. You're attacking people and making giant assumptions about their motivations. It pushes you so close to the troll territory that it becomes hard to distinguish if you are a troll parodying a FOSS hard-liner, or an actual FOSS hard-liner.

Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB

#68

Post by jbellis » Sat, Jul 06, 2013, 4:56 PM UTC

pron wrote: post #60

anon1385 wrote: post #41

Personally I think this is great news. Great news for free software, great news for users, great news for the AGPL. So very few web apps are open source, despite so many of the people who develop them claiming to support free/open source software. It seems that the only way to make the web open source is to force the hand of the developers, and that means we need to start pushing copyleft licences like the AGPL. The…

I, too, like GPL and free software, but I'd like to stress that this change hardly closes any loopholes. The previous BDB license was simply too vague and open to competing interpretations. The AGPL does not require web software using BDB to distribute its source code, only software actually modifying BDB. The gist of AGPL is this: * If you redistribute BDB with your software, then you must provide your software's so…

Partly true. The FSF interprets "X linking Y" as "X modifying Y and therefore subject to Y's license," which is why Microsoft got to make so much hay out of the GPL's "virality."

Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB

#69

Post by krakensden » Sat, Jul 06, 2013, 4:57 PM 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.

I thought the BDB backend for Subversion had been deprecated for years...

Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB

#70

Post by apendleton » Sat, Jul 06, 2013, 5:50 PM UTC

Fortunately for those not keen on the new licensing scheme, it seems like there are some other solid options on the market now for on-disk embedded key-value storage, under a variety of licenses: LevelDB, Kyoto Cabinet, and the new LSM library from sqlite4.