Shibboleth Developers

["RL 'Bob' Morgan" <>]

OK, more discussion.  The BDB license info is at:

  http://www.sleepycat.com/download/licensinginfo.shtml

Their terms are not GPL, per se.  They say if you write and redistribute,
you have to make source available under reasonable terms; and clearly an
Apache/openldap-style license fits that definition.  So I don't think
there's any problem for us to use bdb.

Now openldap goes further and writes to gdbm, which is gpl or maybe lgpl,
and Kurt also goes further and pounds the table and says that the Gnu
claim of applying to software merely written to an API is bogus and
wouldn't stand up in court.  Opinions no doubt vary ... but I don't think
we need to opine on that point to move forward with bdb.

 - RL "Bob"

On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, RL 'Bob' Morgan wrote:

>
> We've had extended conversations about keeping gpl-clean if we include bdb
> or some other gpl'd embedded database backend for long-lived session
> support.
>
> Curiously enough the servers/slapd/back-bdb files have as far as I can
> tell no reference to sleepycat licensing or GPL or anything other than the
> standard pointer to the apache-like openldap license and terms.  I'll ask
> Kurt about this when this WG session ends ...
>
>  - RL "Bob"
>
>
>
>

------------------------------------------------------mace-shib-design-+
For list utilities, archives, subscribe, unsubscribe, etc. please visit the
ListProc web interface at 

    http://archives.internet2.edu/

------------------------------------------------------mace-shib-design--