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

Re: Berkeley DB license (was Re: Points of order on this WG)

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:54:29 -0700
Message-ID: <63df84f0906261554x7f57b06es4d7d89044fca1462@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Nikunj R. Mehta" <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
Cc: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta<nikunj.mehta@oracle.com> wrote:
> FWIW, I came across two pieces about Oracle's open source licensing of
> Berkeley DB that might help clear the air around the licensing issues.
> First, Oracle's license [1] is word-for-word identical to the erstwhile
> SleepyCat license [2]. Secondly, SleepyCat license "qualifies as a free
> software license, and is compatible with the GNU General Public License."
> [3]. Thirdly, the license is OSI approved [4].
> I am not sure if this resolves issues. It would help if you had comments on
> the above so that I can keep that in my context while discussing with our
> legal staff.

Unfortunately this does not resolve the issue. "OSI approved" is
entirely different from compatible with any specific license (GPL,
LGPL, MPL or anything else).

Also, I'm not sure it's entirely fair to simply exclude non
open-source browsers. We want the browser space to be competative,
both for open source browsers and for proprietary browsers. If the API
we come up with is prohibitively complex to implement without either
releasing the browser as open source, or by licensing software from
Oracle or any other party, then I think we haven't designed a good

/ Jonas
Received on Friday, 26 June 2009 22:55:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:12:54 UTC