On Jul 25, 2005, at 7:56 PM, Michael A. Olson wrote:
All,
Let me begin by pointing out what may be obvious -- there's no
issue of compatibility between the Apache License 2.0 and the
Sleepycat Public License. The Sleepycat license was designed to be
identical in effect with the GPL.
That is the rub. For example, let's assume that the Apache Web Server
had a VERY strong dependency on gdbm (for APR's dbm). This
would cause problems for commercial entities to use Apache
as they do nowadays, and would be a major impact to the
type of commercial usage so basic to the Apache License.
Yes, having Sleepycat also offer a commercial license does
somewhat alleviate the problem, but it does not make it
go away, since it then makes it appear that core functionality
requires a non-free, "proprietary" solution, which is also
at odds with the AL.
