I don't think anyone is saying you should require Sleepycat JE to use Apache DS - just make it an option. Then that shouldn't violate anyones license or principals unless you're going to be an idealogue and that's as limiting to innovation/adoption/community as any certain monopolistic company.
Mark On 7/25/05, David Boreham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Paul Franz wrote: > > > As a way around the redistribution restriction, couldn't a person > > create their application to use the Berkley DB JE API, but not > > redistribute it. Instead have the person installing the application > > grab it and install it separately. Therefore the person distributing > > the application would not be violating the license while still letting > > them develop against it. > > > > Is the above correct, or am I missing something? > > I think this is called Redistribution by Proxy, and it's not allowed (or > rather > it puts you in exactly the same position wrt the licence as if you had > distributed the bits directly). > > GPL'ed code like the JE basically makes you release all the source > code for the process into which you link it. This is one of the things > that the Apache Licence doesn't make you do, so they're fundamentally > different. > > I guess Apache DS depends on a Java runtime, and Java isn't Apache Licensed, > but presumably that's not a problem... > > >
