Talk:Sleepycat License

Article is outdated

Sleepycat has been acquired by Oracle, the information in the article should be updated correspondingly. Ifomichev (talk) 06:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I see this has been done.StormWillLaugh (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

---

{{movereq|Berkeley Database License}} Sleepycat License → Berkeley Database License — Mistake in the article's name — Neustradamus (✉) 22:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

source: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/ — Neustradamus (✉) 22:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no mistake in the name, the open source license for Oracle Berkeley DB products is still called the "Sleepycat License" (alternatively the "Sleepycat Public License"). [I] work for Oracle as the Product Manager for Berkeley DB and I worked for Sleepycat for years before the acquisition, I'm in a position to know these things. The Free Software Foundation page listed as a reference is in error. The Open Source Initiative still [lists our license] with the correct name. Please do not rename, my intention today was to add detail to this page so that it is no longer a stub. — Gregory Burd (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I see on http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/products/berkeley-db/htdocs/oslicense.html

Open Source License for Oracle Berkeley DB
/*
 * Copyright (c) 1990-2009
 *      Oracle Corporation.  All rights reserved.

I see on : http://opensource.org/licenses/sleepycat.php

Copyright (c) 1990-1999
Sleepycat Software. All rights reserved.

You can see the new version ;) — Neustradamus (✉) 23:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

oppose Unless someone puts forth additional reliable sources indicating that Sleepycat License is incorrect, then I think we should stick with what the copyright holder uses. --Hamitr (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It is the official link : http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/products/berkeley-db/htdocs/oslicense.html — Neustradamus (✉) 04:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

On the official website, the license is updated and it is Open Source License for Oracle Berkeley DB not old Sleepycat License

• http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/products/berkeley-db/htdocs/oslicense.html
• http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/products/berkeley-db/htdocs/jeoslicense.html
• http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/products/berkeley-db/htdocs/xmloslicense.html — Neustradamus (✉) 22:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The page you keep linking to does not say "this is the Berkely Database License." Instead, the page is entitled "Open Source License for Oracle Berkeley DB." Do you see the difference? --Hamitr (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Open Source License for Oracle Berkeley DB = Berkeley Database License not Sleepycat License — Neustradamus (✉) 03:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, but I'm not going to waste any more time trying to convince you. Good luck with your many move requests. --Hamitr (talk) 04:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, I'm the guy who authors those pages on Oracle's web site and who is in charge of the license and the contents of the Sleepycat License file itself. Although it's a tad silly I'd be happy to put "Sleepycat License" in the text file for you just to clear up this confusion. This seems a bit silly to me, like the tail wagging the dog, but if it reduces confusion I'm happy to oblige. The bottom line, we (Oracle) call the license "Sleepycat License". Our customers call it that. It's always been referred to as the "Sleepycat License". I don't see why the FSF has unilaterally decided to change the name on their website but unfortunately I don't see an edit link on that page (although I have sent them a nice note telling them that they need to correct their page). The license is called the Sleepycat License. Can we drop this now?  ;-) Gregory Burd (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dual licensing

It is possible to circumvent this strict licensing policy through the purchase of a commercial software license from Oracle Corporation consisting of terms and conditions which are negotiated at the time of sale.

This isn't to do with the licence. Dual licensing is used with various licences, and not all Sleepycat licensed software is dual-licensed (e.g., cryptlib). The reference to Oracle Corporation is probably for a particular Sleepycat-licensed software package. Perhaps this part should be removed.

Oracle Berkeley DB now AGPL

Now that Oracle Berkeley DB has switched to GNU Affero GPL, the article will need rewriting. The always doubtful alternative name would now be completely misleading. (Something sensible should happen with the redirect too.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.72.169 (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal/inclusion of license terms

@Diannaa: You've removed the licensing terms from the article, citing Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria as a reason. The license itself is assumably free and no different than the license terms shown at e.g. MIT License or ISC License articles here at English Wikipedia. Could you explain or revert your change? 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

References

There's no reason to assume that since the license is free that the documentation is in the public domain. If there's other articles that need copyright cleanup, that's a separate issue. Diannaa 14:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Remove notability template

Now that some references have been added, the notability template should be removed, unless someone has a valid objection.

The fact is, anyone involved in the early days of open source software knows that this was one of the first open source licenses, that it was well known to everyone in the field, and that it was very influential in the development of the open source license genre as a whole. So it is unquestionably notable. But it would take digging to find secondary sources that clearly show that level of notability. Anyway, we do have some references now, so they should be deemed sufficient in this case to remove the template.StormWillLaugh (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The article, as it is, doesn't show it any way and to me it looks rather unnotable, as the license was only used by one company. Would be better if you supported your claims with reliable independent sources:

• this was one of the first open source licenses
• it was well known to everyone in the field
• it was very influential in the development of the open source license genre as a whole

--Amakuha (talk) 12:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)