Re: [ALACPP] Sleepycat licensing

[Kevin Scaldeferri <kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Friday, October 24, 2003, at 11:23 PM, Jon Stewart wrote:

> > Actually, I found that page rather confusing, and not in line with how
> > I thought the BSD license works.
> >
> > For example, if I understand what they are saying correctly, a web app
> > running in a single co-lo is in the clear, but as soon as you set up a
> > redundant or distributed system at multiple co-los you have to release
> > your source code or purchase a license.  That seems like an odd, and
> > very arbitrary, restriction.
>
>
> This is the page that I had read initially. If you read the license 
> that
> they link to, it is not BSD. It is GPL, without the preamble and
> lunatic-speak; same idea, though.

Well, the problem seems to be that the license itself doesn't define 
"redistribute", only the description page.  And, their definition seems 
insane.


> As another example: you would not be able to use Berkeley DB in any
> proprietary commercial software.

Depends on what you mean by commercial software, I guess.

For example, they seem to say that you can have as big a commercial 
enterprise as you want if all the machines using the app are in the 
same building.  They explicitly mention web apps, but it seems like any 
client-server model should be fine, by the same logic.

Furthermore, I don't know exactly how your company actually works, but 
it seems like you can have an application which you use in-house for 
forensic analysis, and you can charge people for the service of you 
using it, and as long as it never leave the building, that's also fine.

Kevin

_______________________________________________
alacpp mailing list
alacpp@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/alacpp