<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.3.2">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
Thanks for pointing this out.<BR>
<BR>
Looking at the actual license, it seems clear to me that they have adapted a "BSD-style" license, which<BR>
is quite a change from the sleepycat license (which very explicitly mentioned a public-facing website.)<BR>
<BR>
I will send a note to <A HREF="mailto:berkeleydb-info_us@oracle.com.">berkeleydb-info_us@oracle.com.</A><BR>
<BR>
In the absence of other information, I think this would be interpreted as NOT applying to a website;<BR>
as Joubert Nel points out, however, this issue has always revolved around the definition of "redistribute".<BR>
<BR>
I will forward the response here.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 19:10 -0400, Joubert Nel wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 18:28, Robert L. Read wrote:</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> I agree with Ian. Previously, one definitely required a license for</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> any public-facing commercial website.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> I have not researched any change that Oracle may or may not have made.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">Reading the Oracle licensing page</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">(<A HREF="http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/products/berkeley-db/htdocs/licensing.html">http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/products/berkeley-db/htdocs/licensing.html</A>):</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">1) Whether the application is commercial or not is immaterial to whether</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">you need to license.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">2) The restriction is that if you "redistribute" an application you need</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">a license, unless your application is distributed with source code (i.e.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">"open source")</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">3) They specifically state that you don't need a license if your</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">application is not distributed to others.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">Legally, the clarification then needs to be around what constitutes</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">"distribution". In the Q&A section of the licensing page they give 2</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">lame examples of what would not be considered "distribution", but</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">unfortunately, I don't see any specific reference as to whether a</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">public-facing website would be considered "distribution of the</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">application".</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">My (limited) legal knowledge would say that a public-facing website does</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">not constitute distribution of the application. However, if you host the</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">application on at a hosting company, this may be argued to be</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">"distributed" to this party.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">Joubert</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">PS: there is an e-mail address on this licensing page; perhaps someone</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">wants to submit this question?</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 16:06 -0400, Ian Eslick wrote: </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > On May 23, 2007, at 3:45 PM, Chris Dean wrote:</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > ></FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > >> Am I right that I can't use elephant+bdb in closed source commercial</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > >> application without purchasing licence?</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > ></FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > > IANAL, but my reading is that if you ship a closed source product you</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > > need a license for Berkeley DB. If you have a service/web site (like</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > > Google, Yahoo, etc) my reading is that you do not need a license for</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > > Berkeley DB.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > I think that Sleepycat, now Oracle clarified that distinction and </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > that any public-facing for-profit website needs a license. Robert </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > may have more to say on this topic.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > Ian</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">_______________________________________________</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">elephant-devel site list</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><A HREF="mailto:elephant-devel@common-lisp.net">elephant-devel@common-lisp.net</A></FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000"><A HREF="http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/elephant-devel">http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/elephant-devel</A></FONT>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>