[Spambayes] Current version

[Barry A. Warsaw]

>>>>> "TP" == Tim Peters <tim@zope.com> writes:

    TP> [Richie Hindle]
    >> ...  Slightly OT: This has concerned me since PLabs announced
    >> that they were integrating bsddb into Python 2.3 - it's going
    >> to make it very easy (especially on Windows) for someone to
    >> write code that uses anydbm, wrap it up with Py2exe and ship it
    >> under a commercial license, not knowing that they're breaking
    >> the Sleepycat license.  They've never heard of Sleepycat
    >> Software or even bsddb - as far as they're concerned, this
    >> "bsddb.pyd" file that Py2exe tells them they need to ship is
    >> just another part of Python, like _socket.pyd or select.pyd.

    TP> Barry Warsaw talked w/ the Sleepycat folks about the licensing
    TP> issues, and was satisfied they're tractable.  I won't presume
    TP> to explain them, though.  My contribution was adding an XXX
    TP> comment to the 2.3 NEWS file reminding us that the licensing
    TP> issues are going to remain clear as mud unless and until
    TP> Bar^H^H^Hsomeone writes up what they believe Sleepcat says is
    TP> the truth.

Here's what I believe Sleepycat says is the truth.

Because Python is open source, we are allowed to link BerkeleyDB with
Python in a binary and the resulting binary can be used in commercial
applications.  The reason this is okay (IIU Sleepycat correctly), is
that Sleepycat considers Python to be the "application using
BerkeleyDB" and because you can get the source for Python.  Your
closed source commercial application isn't the "application using
BerkeleyDB".

Sleepycat wants to promote scripting language use of BerkeleyDB so
they allow this, even though they admit it's a somewhat arbitrary
decision.

If I was shipping a commercial application though, I'm not sure how
much I would trust the opinion of an under-rested, non-lawyer, Unix
hacking bass player, but YMMV.

aren't-you-glad-i'm-not-a-drummer-ly y'rs,
-Barry