I feel this post has shown that many don't understand what AGPL is or just assumed that because the article is about Oracle and licensing then it got to be evil, let's bash Oracle!
A Change in License for Berkeley DB
71–79 of 79 posts
Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB
#72Earlier 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…
OpenLDAP LMDB (http://symas.com/mdb/) may be an alternative via http://developers.slashdot.org/story/13/07/05/1647215/oracle...
Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB
#73What 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.
So the problem, if I understand it correctly, is that you want to create a commercial product out of free building blocks, and you're angry that the author of one of those building blocks in changing their license so that you can't use it any more and still sell your product?
Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB
#74My startup works on free alternative (apache licensed) db engine. When I saw title I was really woried they would change license to more liberal. That would affect our future sales seriously. But this is great new for us! :-)
Why are you worried about the "future sales" of your free bob alternative?
Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB
#75Earlier 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…
Regarding a Berkeley DB equivalent, how about Tupl?
> Tupl is a high-performance, concurrent, transactional, scalable, low-level database. Intended to replace BerkeleyDB, Tupl supports true record-level locking. Unlike BerkeleyDB-JE, Tupl doesn't suffer from garbage collection pauses with very large databases. Tupl also includes support for cursors, upgradable locks, deadlock detection, hot backups, striped files, encryption, nested transaction scopes, and direct lock control.
Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
still included with the batteries in 2.7, which comes with most distros.
Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB
#77My startup works on free alternative (apache licensed) db engine. When I saw title I was really woried they would change license to more liberal. That would affect our future sales seriously. But this is great new for us! :-)
Why are you worried about the "future sales" of your free bob alternative?
We sell non-free tools and services.
Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Regarding a Berkeley DB equivalent, how about Tupl? https://github.com/cojen/Tupl > Tupl is a high-performance, concurrent, transactional, scalable, low-level database. Intended to replace BerkeleyDB, Tupl supports true record-level locking. Unlike BerkeleyDB-JE, Tupl doesn't suffer from garbage collection pauses with very large databases. Tupl also includes support for cursors, upgradable locks, deadlock detection,…
In Java. For a low-level in-process library that most people link in to their actual app Java is completely unsuitable. Not quite sure how this replaces most of the BDB use-cases, but if you are going to run in another process then there are a whole host of options to consider. Tupl looks pretty interesting and it would be fun to have a reason to play with it, but this does not handle any of the cases where I turn to BDB.
Re: A Change in License for Berkeley DB
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
Subversion uses bdb as its backend.
And the Apache licensed Subversion is still compatible with AGPL licensed BDB. What am I missing here?
Apparently the Apache License is not compatible with AGPLv3. I confess I do not understand why.