Re: [open-cobol-list] libdb Licensing - READ

[David Essex]

Roger While wrote:

> Good news on Berkeley DB licensing.
> I have been in contact with Sleepycat.
> The current situation is detailed in the E-Mail
> communication below.
> More to follow including (I hope) the explicit allowance
> to use db with Cobol.
> ... 
> > The short answer to your question is, we'd normally consider the
> > use you outline below to require a proprietary license for Berkeley
> > DB.  If a third party writes an application that links the COBOL
> > ISAM library, then that app is using Berkeley DB; it would have
> > to be available in open source form, or would need a paid
> > proprietary license.
> >
> > However, there is not much business advantage to Sleepycat in
> > requiring that this specific case adhere to the terms of our
> > public license.  The amount of money we'd make from users building
> > COBOL ISAM apps would be small.  Most likely, we'd simply drive
> > people away from our software.
> >
> > As a result, Sleepycat is willing to permit use of these COBOL
> > libraries, including Berkeley DB, in proprietary or open source
> > apps at no charge.  We're able to write you a variance letter
> > that makes that explicit if you like.
> ...

While this is an interesting offer, the fundamental problem remains.

As soon as you include the BDB header (version 2.x and above), it's 
license terms are in conflict with the OC Run-Time license (LGPL).

Furthermore, if you make BDB (version 2.x and above) a requirement, all 
users will be bound by the terms and conditions of the new license and 
not the LGPL.

Even if you do adopt BDB (version 2.x and above) as a requirement for 
the OC RTL, will it resolve all the ISAM support problems or issues.
- Transaction support
- ISAM standard compatibility
...

No it will not, and more code will be required.

So what is the advantage ?

Anyway my 2 cents worth.