On 21/03/2009, at 6:38 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Brett,
There is no way we accept the Sleepcat license, it's viral. It is
also heavily recommend against using because it can force you to
have to redistribute your source code. That from our IP lawyer who
deals with every day. Please don't dispense legal advice. Everything
in law is in interpretation but there are some accepted
interpretation. It's also unlikely that those contracts are
identical unless they are verbatim and originate from the same
country.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying exactly. We seem to have the
same understanding of the license at least (that's exactly what I said
in the issue), it is totally viral and forces you to redistribute your
source code if you use it (it is based on distribution). My suggestion
was how we could offer our source code, without the library, and give
suitable warning on the impact of turning it on as an optional bit of
Maven SCM for those that can use the license.
Regardless, I closed the issue since Olivier moved it out.
- Brett
--
Brett Porter
br...@apache.org
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
