I am not a lawyer, but I believe that Michael's interpretation is way
off base.
On Oct 26, 2005, at 10:50 PM, Michael J. Segel wrote:
On Thursday 27 October 2005 00:00, David W. Van Couvering wrote:
Michael J. Segel wrote:
On Wednesday 26 October 2005 17:44, Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
Raji Sridar wrote:
Hi Michael,
Your opinion was very encouraging - I also built a prototype
based on
Derby. I am happy to say, that our management has almost
decided on
Derby, subject to legal approval for the licensing aspects.
Yeah thats the kicker.
I'm not a lawyer, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
If you use Derby embedded in your app, you have to also ship a
copy of
the derby source code with your app. Note: If your app is
actually a
modification to Derby, then you have to publish the source code
of your
app. And this is where it gets tricky.
Huh? It sounds like you are talking about Gnu Public License, not
Apache 2.0 license. I'm not a lawyer either, and you do need to
check
the license, but as I understand it, you are free to redistribute
binaries as you see fit, and source code of neither Derby nor your
application need to be provided. You can also take Derby and
modify it
as your needs fit and are free to either put these changes back into
Apache Derby or not.
David
Errr yeah, probably. I was typing this as I was watching the SOX rule!
Yeah,
I went back and read Apache 2.0.
Very interesting reading.
And no, its not compatible with GPL. (Again talk to a lawyer. ;-)
True, but who cares? The Apache license is much more liberal than GPL
or even LGPL.
Essentially you are correct. All you need to include is the notice
that you
used Apache code in your product and follow the instructions and
you're free
to do with it what you want.
"If" you include notices then you need to include the notice that you
used Apache code.
This would also explain why I see so many folks from IBM and SUN
here. ;-)
(TANSTAAFL still applies. Hopefully McNeally, and Mills remember
this.... )
So essentially, anything is fair game. The only draw back is that
if you
wanted to do some cool work, any corporation could just take your
IP and
apply it in their own products.
Not at all. You are free to license the derived work under any
license you choose.
For example, if one were to create a really cool method for
optimizing query
performance and adds it to Derby, IBM or Oracle could take that and
use it in
their other products.
No, there is no requirement that you even publish your changes.
The only way to protect against that would be to
create your own distribution tree and as each new version of Derby
that comes
out, you would have to merge it against your tree.
If you want to use Derby with proprietary and non-Apache license
terms, of course you would create a distribution that includes your
modifications. But you could choose the timing of when you re-
synchronized with the Derby distribution.
Bottom line. Its best to use Derby, as it, and if you wanted to
extend Derby,
write your own Java Database. ;-)
I don't know where this conclusion came from. The Apache license is
very liberal for developers who just want to use Derby as is as well
as for developers who want to change it just a bit, as well as for
developers who want to radically change some part of it.
I'd really suggest a competent legal authority review this with you.
Craig
Interesting....
--
Michael Segel
Principal
MSCC
(312) 952-8175
