Re: Subversion 1.1.0 Release Candidate 1 released.

Mark Phippard wrote:
> http://www.winterspeak.com/columns/102901.html
>
> Which contains a lot of the interpretation info for the Sleepycat
> license. Interestingly I found it in a message from Ben Reser on
> another mailing list archive.

According to the article - quoting Michael Olson:

"If a company wants to redistribute Berkeley DB as a part of a proprietary
product, they can come to Sleepycat and pay us a fee to purchase different
license terms from us."

... and ...

"Berkeley DB is a library. In order to use it, developers must link it with
their applications. That gives us leverage over the terms under which the
embedding application is distributed."

... and ...

"The restrictions apply only to people who actually ship Berkeley DB. That's
the action that requires either payment or release of source code."

All of those quotes, I believe, suggests that it is _Subversion_ that must
abide by the BDB licence, and that the responsibility does not carry over to
source code that's simply version controlled by Subversion.

As long as you only use Subversion as a development tool, I don't think you
need a licence from Sleepycat. Generally, I believe you're "safe" as long as
your product doesn't redistribute BDB - directly or indirectly (for example
by shipping with Subversion bundled).

In other words, I agree with Mark Phippard, here. I might be wrong, though.
;)

-- 
Martin Lie
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org