> Several people have asked about the terms of the Berkeley DB license,
> and the conditions under which users need to pay Sleepycat for
> redistribution.
>
> To clarify, you're permitted to redistribute binary copies of your
> application, including Berkeley DB, as long as source code is freely
> available *somewhere*. Anyone could compile and sell PostgreSQL on
> a CD without paying Sleepycat, because the source code remains
> available on PostgreSQL.org.
>
> Lots of people ship binary copies of the OpenLDAP directory server,
> which uses Berkeley DB. They don't pay us. Only the companies that
> ship proprietary directory servers do.
>
> License fees are only required if you make a proprietary version of
> the Open Source product. For example, if a vendor took PostgreSQL,
> made changes to the backend, and didn't contribute those changes
> back to PostgreSQL.org, then the vendor would have to pay Sleepycat
> for the right to redistribute our software as a part of the package.
Seems this changes our license more toward GPL. I don't think that is
going to be supportable by the group. I doubt we are willing to modify
our license in order to use the Sleepycat DB code.
We don't use GPL code in PostgreSQL for the same reason.
> I understand the implications of the BSD and GPL licenses, and why
> they're appropriate or inappropriate for particular cases. If the
> Berkeley DB license imposes conditions on PostgreSQL that aren't
> in keeping with the desires of the developers, then of course the
> proposed project won't work.
Sorry, looks like a deal killer. Of course, others will voice their
opinions. This is just my guess.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
