I just tried to build svn a got word that
I didn't have the proper Berkeley DB
version needed for libsvn_fs. I followed
the instructions and went to the sleepycat
homepage. After poking around a bit,
I hit this page:
On that page, the following text appears:
"If you build an application that you do
not redistribute outside of your
site, or if you build an application
and your source code is freely available
and redistributable by others,
you may use Berkeley DB at no charge."
That seemed a bit odd to me. The
original BSD license is still mentioned
in the sleepycat license:
But, this additional condition #3
seems a bit more like a GPL clause
than a BSD one.
* 3. Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on
* how to obtain complete source code for the DB software and any
* accompanying software that uses the DB software. The source code
* must either be included in the distribution or be available for no
* more than the cost of distribution plus a nominal fee, and must be
* freely redistributable under reasonable conditions. For an
* executable file, complete source code means the source code for all
* modules it contains. It does not include source code for modules or
* files that typically accompany the major components of the operating
* system on which the executable file runs.
Note the "and any software that uses the DB software" part.
It seems like using sleepycat's modified Berkely DB is
going to throw a wrench in the ability for anyone to
create a proprietary product derived from svn. I am
not saying that is a bad thing, I like the GPL. I
am also not trying to start a flame war or anything.
I just want to make sure that someone has considered
this issue since the sleepycat terms seem more
restrictive than the apache and collabnet terms.
Red Hat Inc
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:25 2006