Licensing question

[Database Administrator]

I have a few questions related to the licensing regulations on
BerkeleyDB.

How exactly does the Open Source License work for BerkeleyDB? Does it
imply that any application that uses (links with) it has to be under
GPL license? Or can it be under some other Open Source License like BSD
License for instance?

How to properly read the term "use" in this context? Is the direct
invocation of BDB API a "use"? I assume it is. But what about more
complex cases? Is the use determined by the fact of linking (statically
or dynamically) with libraries built from BDB source code? Or may be by
having some of BDB header files in the dependencies of the developed
source code even if they are not directly included in the application
source code?

Could somebody please clarify these questions?


Thanks!
/evolvah

[Database Administrator]

> How exactly does the Open Source License work for BerkeleyDB? Does it
> imply that any application that uses (links with) it has to be under
> GPL license? Or can it be under some other Open Source License like BSD
> License for instance?

It doesn't have to be GPL, but at least the resulting executable has
to be treated as if it were covered by the GPL (that is, you must
distribute source code along with them).

> How to properly read the term "use" in this context? Is the direct
> invocation of BDB API a "use"? I assume it is. But what about more
> complex cases? Is the use determined by the fact of linking (statically
> or dynamically) with libraries built from BDB source code?

I can't help you with these questions. Sleepycat's position was
somewhat inconsistent in the past. I'm pretty sure they assume that
dynamically linking against the library causes the resulting work to
be covered by the source code distribution requirement. But on the
other hand, Perl and Python scripts can use the library, independently
of the licensing terms:

| Do I have to pay for a Berkeley DB license5A to use it in my Perl or Python scripts?
|
| No, you may use the Berkeley DB open source license at no cost. The
| Berkeley DB open source license requires that software that uses
| Berkeley DB be freely redistributable. In the case of Perl or Python,
| that software is Perl or Python, and not your scripts. Any scripts you
| write are your property, including scripts that make use of Berkeley
| DB. None of the Perl, Python or Berkeley DB licenses place any
| restrictions on what you may do with them.



An interesting question is how Java fits into that interpretation.

[Database Administrator]

Thanks for the response, Florian!

To bring things into a more or less concrete state, let's imagine that
I wrote an application which is a custom database server with
BerkeleyDB as a storage back-end. Please correct me if I'm wrong but my
understanding is that the source code of this server has to be made
Open Source to meet the requirements but it does not have to be GPL'ed
though. It can be distributed under BSD license, for instance.

But what about a remote application that connects to this custom DB
server and manipulates data? Does it have to be made Open Source as
well? My understanding is that if Oracle uses a standard GPL then by
the "viral" nature of it I would have to make my DB server GPL'ed as
well as the application itself has to be GPL'ed; otherwise, it will
turn into a maintenance nightmare to support a client and a server
which do not really share marshaling routines.


/evolvah

On Jan 25, 2:34 pm, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > How exactly does the Open Source License work for BerkeleyDB? Does it
> > imply that any application that uses (links with) it has to be under
> > GPL license? Or can it be under some other Open Source License like BSD
> > License for instance?It doesn't have to be GPL, but at least the resulting executable has
> to be treated as if it were covered by the GPL (that is, you must
> distribute source code along with them).
>
> > How to properly read the term "use" in this context? Is the direct
> > invocation of BDB API a "use"? I assume it is. But what about more
> > complex cases? Is the use determined by the fact of linking (statically
> > or dynamically) with libraries built from BDB source code?I can't help you with these questions. Sleepycat's position was
> somewhat inconsistent in the past. I'm pretty sure they assume that
> dynamically linking against the library causes the resulting work to
> be covered by the source code distribution requirement. But on the
> other hand, Perl and Python scripts can use the library, independently
> of the licensing terms:
>
> | Do I have to pay for a Berkeley DB license5A to use it in my Perl or Python scripts?
> |
> | No, you may use the Berkeley DB open source license at no cost. The
> | Berkeley DB open source license requires that software that uses
> | Berkeley DB be freely redistributable. In the case of Perl or Python,
> | that software is Perl or Python, and not your scripts. Any scripts you
> | write are your property, including scripts that make use of Berkeley
> | DB. None of the Perl, Python or Berkeley DB licenses place any
> | restrictions on what you may do with them.
>
>
>
> An interesting question is how Java fits into that interpretation.

[Database Administrator]

> But what about a remote application that connects to this custom DB
> server and manipulates data? Does it have to be made Open Source as
> well? My understanding is that if Oracle uses a standard GPL then by
> the "viral" nature of it I would have to make my DB server GPL'ed as
> well as the application itself has to be GPL'ed;

I do not consider network access to the functionality of a server
distribution of the server's object code. In other words, no
distribution in the GPL sense takes place, and its viral nature
doesn't come into effect. (I can't tell you if Oracle shares this
view.)

[Database Administrator]

I agree. Besides, GPL is not even mentioned in the License Agreement
<http://www.oracle.com/technology/sof...ley-db/htdocs/
oslicense.html>.

I sent an inquiry to the official address in Oracle on January 25th
and still I have no official response...


/Sergey

On Jan 26, 8:58 am, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > But what about a remote application that connects to this custom DB
> > server and manipulates data? Does it have to be made Open Source as
> > well? My understanding is that if Oracle uses a standard GPL then by
> > the "viral" nature of it I would have to make my DB server GPL'ed as
> > well as the application itself has to be GPL'ed;I do not consider network access to the functionality of a server
> distribution of the server's object code. In other words, no
> distribution in the GPL sense takes place, and its viral nature
> doesn't come into effect. (I can't tell you if Oracle shares this
> view.)

[Database Administrator]

> I agree. Besides, GPL is not even mentioned in the License Agreement
> <http://www.oracle.com/technology/sof...ley-db/htdocs/
> oslicense.html>.

Yes, but it uses the same copyleft trick as the GPL. The GPL is much
stronger because it's made much more explicit that you cannot impose
additional restrictions on the recipient. But the basic question,
whether access to a server running a piece of software implies
distribution, should have the same answer for both licenses.