W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Points of order on this WG

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:27:43 -0700
Message-ID: <63df84f0906261127x393d5160x3cf790b62012ca29@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Nikunj R. Mehta" <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
Cc: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Nikunj R.
Mehta<nikunj.mehta@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>> As a side note, it should be noted Berkeley DB itself could not be used
>>>> by WebKit or Gecko to implement the spec, because even though it is open
>>>> source, the license is not compatible with the LGPL. It seems unlikely that
>>>> non-open-source browser engines could use it either, unless they are willing
>>>> to pay Oracle for a commercial license. So it's very important for the spec
>>>> to be clear and detailed, because everyone will have to implement it from
>>>> scratch.
>>>
>>> Huh? what? I hope you had read Oracle's BDB license document [3] and open
>>> source FAQ [4].
>>
>> This is the type of thing I'd expect you to say had those links clearly
>> stated GPL, LGPL, etc compatibility.  Am I missing it? Because I don't see
>> anything that makes it clear.
>
> Oracle's license is what it is. I don't see why I should commit to offering
> it under GPL or LGPL.

Note that mozilla has since long made a commitment not to ship code
that is not compatible with all of GPL, LGPL *and* MPL. So unless the
BDB license is compatible with all those three we couldn't use BDB.

That is what Maciej was saying, and it seems you are confirming that?

Open sources licenses are complicated.

/ Jonas
Received on Friday, 26 June 2009 18:28:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:31 GMT