Re: Asking for advice regarding the Sleepy Cat's dbxml license
Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> O Xoves, 5 de Maio de 2005 ?s 10:36:09 +0200, Tomas Fasth escrib?a:
> > * 3. Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on
> > * how to obtain complete source code for the DB software and any
> > * accompanying software that uses the DB software. The source code
> > * must either be included in the distribution or be available for no
> > * more than the cost of distribution plus a nominal fee, and must be
> > * freely redistributable under reasonable conditions. For an
> > * executable file, complete source code means the source code for all
> > * modules it contains. It does not include source code for modules or
> > * files that typically accompany the major components of the operating
> > * system on which the executable file runs.
>
> This one is problematic as it does not specify for how long the "information
> on how to obtain complete source code" must be valid.
You could simply say: "The source code is included in the
distribution, under src/". That seems to me to be "information
on how to obtain complete source code". So then you comply
with the license IMO.
The license is more onerous than the GPL though, since it
talks about "software that uses the DB software" rather than
software _based on_ the DB software. There are lots of ways
in which you can use the software without creating a derivative
work. But that's a minor issue I guess.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
Reply to: