Locking database cleanup?

simo idra at samba.org
Sat Apr 8 13:34:21 GMT 2006

On Sat, 2006-04-08 at 08:12 -0500, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> > lör 2006-04-08 klockan 06:51 -0500 skrev Gerald (Jerry) Carter:
> > 
> >> Did they change it?  It use to be GPL compatipable but only
> >> available for certain uses.
> > 
> > They did change it some years ago, after pressure 
> > from various GPL vendors IIRC.
> For non-commercial purposes only though IIRC.  Correct?

Jerry, I have not read the license, but any license that is not
available for commercial purposes is NOT GPL compatible. So if the FSF
says that the Sleepycat License is GPL compatible, I bet it can be used
in commercial products as well (not closed source one tough).

> So anyone could maintain a bdb patch outside of tree (or
> even a non-required patch in tree).  But relying on bdb
> would be limiting in the grand sense of the word.  This
> would cripple Samba's ability to be shipped by vendors
> (or at least require purchansing a commercial license for
> it).  Now you ask why I would care?  Mostly because Samba
> gains a tremendous amount of value from vendors (mostly in
> the QA and estoteric features areas).

I think the real problem would be testing (as I am sure the License
problem is a non issue). The DB is a critical part of samba and it is
really important that it get tested very hard.

> Licensing issues aside, technically there seems no advantage
> for our needs as tridge eloquently pointed out.  So the
> licensing issue really doesn't matter.  If someone wants
> a bdb backend, that fine.  We certainly have that freedom.
> And freedom is what I really care about.

I agree.


Simo Sorce
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer
email: idra at samba.org

More information about the samba-technical mailing list