db4o Developer Community

Hi i am planing to develope a software with a free Object Orinted database.

is db4o completly free ?

Thank.

flyingman wrote:

is db4o completly free ?

Yellow_emperor,

thanks for your extensive discussion of the GPL.

What is important to know is that db4o's GPL version is free of charge, but not free of obligations:  If you use GPL software, you have to give back under the GPL.

Now, as you point out, there is a range of interpretations of the triggers for inheritance of the GPL.  To be able to give our users a clear guideline we have asked one of the word's most knowledgeable law firms, Fenwick & West, that has done plenty of GPL litigations, to provide this statement.  I am pretty confident that these guidelines are not contradicting the GPL.

Let's take a step back:  The GPL version of db4o is for those developers that are members of the open source community.  Open source is about sharing - give and take.

What you are really discussing are hybrids of open source and closed source software and how to walk the fine line to circumvent the very spirit of the GPL. I think, if you decide not to open source your software, usually for commercial reasons, then you should really not free-ride on open source offers.  For this case, we offer an alternate, very affordable commercial license.  It runs at cost which are much lower than any incumbent, closed-source software alternative.  These small license fees enable the team to provide a great product, great support and an ecosystem around the db4o platform.

If you still take the risk and use open source software without giving back, you should not be surprised if both, the open source community as well as the db4objects' team, will not be happy about it.

Does that make sense?

Christof

erdsah88 wrote:

if the company is going to use the db4o only in one server ?What does it pay?

If you download db4o under the GPL, develop an application and use this application including db4o inhouse only (i.e., no redistribution), it is fine to use the GPL'd version of db4o without you being obliged to open source your "derivative work" (i.e., the application itself) under the GPL to the public.

The trigger for the GPL obligations are the redistribution.

In short:  No redistribution, no GPL constrains.  If there is redistribution, you either go GPL yourself or choose the affordable commercial license of db4o.

erdsah88 wrote:

if there a place that we can look for licencing....

http://www.db4o.com/about/company/legalpolicies/gpl.aspx

http://www.db4o.com/about/company/legalpolicies/gplinterpretation.aspx

http://www.db4o.com/commercial/purchase/policy.aspx

or inquire sales: http://www.db4o.com/commercial/purchase/enquiry.aspx

Christof

Please say YES or NO.

I have a website and I make my living out of it by selling ads and goods and services from that site. I am planning to use db40 as a backend datastore for that. I have developed a java/dotnet based web application and I am using db4o for my datastore. I am under the impression that I don't need to buy any commercial license for this purpose eventhough I am making money out of my website.  And also, if somebody asks me to share my application code with the public, since I am using GPL license, I am not legally obliged to share my application code.

Sorry I hit the post button before I complete my second scenario:

Scenario 2:

I have developed a Java/C# application and used db4o as a datastore. I want to sell my application and make money. But, here, I have not changed any code of db4o. I am simply using its .jar file. That's it. And, what ever I am charging my user, I am charging for my labor on my application code and I am not giving him the source code of my application. In this senario, I need to go for a commercial license of db4o eventhough I am not changing any code. Because I am distributing db4o along with my application to the user, and my application is dependent on db4o as a datastore.

Scenario 3:

I have developed the above application (mentioned in scene 2) and just sold it to my users without distributing db4o database with it. But, I will advise them to download the GPL version of db4o and use it with my application. Since I am not distributing db4o along with my application, I don't need to buy any commercial license for it. And also I don't need to share the source code of my application with the public since I consider it as proprietary and my own and I am charging only for what I have developed.

mkarnati wrote:

Please say YES or NO.

I always like to say "YES", but...:  What is the question? 

mkarnati wrote:

Scenario 1: I have a website and I make my living out of it by selling ads and goods and services from that site. I am planning to use db40 as a backend datastore for that. I have developed a java/dotnet based web application and I am using db4o for my datastore. I am under the impression that I don't need to buy any commercial license for this purpose eventhough I am making money out of my website.  And also, if somebody asks me to share my application code with the public, since I am using GPL license, I am not legally obliged to share my application code.

I am not a lawyer.  If you want peace-of-mind, you need to go and get legal advise or become a (commercial) dDN member - the latter is cheaper and also helps us to continue to invest into the product and to make our living.

In general, though, the classical question is two-part and goes like this:

a) Am I obliged to buy a commercial license of db4o for this use case?

Answer:  No.

You can (always) use GPL licensed db4o.

b) When I use the GPL version, am I obliged to share my application code ("derivative work") with the community?

Answer:  No.

Unless you re-distribute your application code - in this case you need to open source it under the GPL and notify all users about it and link to where the source code is available.  Redistribution could include shipping your application to a provider, a subcontractor or to any other third party... there's a wide array of legal interpretations.

Also keep in mind that the GPL 3 is on its way which will address a couple of issues, specifically with respect to using GPL'd software in Web services.

Scenario 2: I have developed a Java/C# application and used db4o as a datastore. I want to sell my application and make money. But, here, I have not changed any code of db4o. I am simply using its .jar file. That's it. And, what ever I am charging my user, I am charging for my labor on my application code and I am not giving him the source code of my application. In this senario, I need to go for a commercial license of db4o eventhough I am not changing any code. Because I am distributing db4o along with my application to the user, and my application is dependent on db4o as a datastore.

Again:  You can use the GPL version for free, but you must open source your application under the GPL.  If you don't you will be in breach of the GPL license terms.

Or:  You buy a commerical license which gives you the right to redistribute db4o and derivative work close-source.

The trigger is the redistribution, not whether you have modified the db4o source code (that is something that applies to the LGPL, but not the GPL)

Scenario 3: I have developed the above application (mentioned in scene 2) and just sold it to my users without distributing db4o database with it. But, I will advise them to download the GPL version of db4o and use it with my application. Since I am not distributing db4o along with my application, I don't need to buy any commercial license for it. And also I don't need to share the source code of my application with the public since I consider it as proprietary and my own and I am charging only for what I have developed.

This scenario is the same as 2. 

You hit all 4 triggers we specifically spelled out for the GPL applicability (db4o specific interpretation of the GPL):

• You compile your software against the db4o software;
• Your software contains specific references to the db4o software;
• Your software requires the db4o software to work; or
• Your software uses the proprietary API to the db4o software.

What you really do with this setup is to circumvent the spirit of the GPL, which is:  If you use open source GPL components, you have to be GPL yourself.  Take and give.  Give and take.

What's so bad with sharing a small fraction of your revenue with someone who provides a major component and saves you tons of time?  Also, your small contribution puts us in a situation to provide support, continue the product development and also take into account specific features that you need (as opposed to other dDN members).

Christof

Yellow_emperor,  I appreciate you sharing this.

Just take a step back, though:  You explain with a lot of diligence how commercial, closed source companies try to circumvent the intention and spirit of the GPL and use free, GPL software components without neither giving back to the community nor pay for it.

I agree with you that there are many interpretations of the GPL out there.  The entire thread here and the calls for "plain English" reflect that very well.  Because this is not very user friendly, db4objects has introduced the GPL interpretation policy which eliminates all this disturbing and economically risky ambiguity.  This concise framework is still within the boundaries of the GPL, but without the ambiguity of its interpretations.

I respect that someone might not like the outcome (i.e., that there are less free-riders on this ambiguity), but I think we all agree that we're better off having a clear policy in place rather than ambiguity which will then just end up wasting our time discussing over licensing issues and/or even paying lawyers for it.

We at db4objects prefer to invest in good software and service rather than lawyers. So everything is very simple:  If you are open source, we are open source and share all we have freely with each other.  If you are closed source (i.e., commercial) we ask you for a small contribution once and not until you ship (distribute) your software, i.e., when you collect money from your own customers and when you are in a position to pay your suppliers.

As a result, db4o's dual license policy is IMO:

• concise and unambiguous and
• fair

because

• the product is very affordable (much lower unit prices) and cash saving to those that make money using db4o (... and we can only afford this because we have much lower cost than conventional vendors by leveraging db4o's open source status)
• the product is free for those that can't afford paying for software (like students, faculty, researchers, evaluators, community projects etc.) but who can retribute their own work instead because they don't need to protect commercial, proprietary IP

If someone cannot agree to this, he/she is better off to look for alternatives to db4o.

Christof

Thanks Christof for your quick response. I totally agree with you. In fact these questions were asked by one of my friends and simply rephrased his questions by creating scenarios. I gave almost a similar reply for his questions, but he was not convinced. So, I wanted to check my understanding .

Thanks,

Mallesham Karnati

I was recently reading through the community forum provided on the db4o
web site, and discovered a reference to an interpretation of the GNU
General Public License endorsed by the db4o developement team:

http://db4o.com/about/company/legalpolicies/gplinterpretation.aspx

In the same context that this reference appeared, the forum poster
(Patrick Roemer) indicated that your law firm was responsible for this
interpretation.  In what sense is Fenwick and West responsible for this
interpretation?

I ask because the interpretation, specifically the four bullets indicating
circumstances under which software must inherit the GPL are misleading. 
By strictly literal interpretation of the GPL, none of the statements
actually applies.  The Free Software Foundation publishes a body of work
explicating their interpretation of the GPL.  By FSF interpretation, only
the first statement applies.

The other claims simply hold no bearing on the reality of code released
under the GPL.  The FSF does not appreciate misinterpretations of the GPL.
 Overly liberal interpretations do not provide important restrictions
necessary to protect accepted implementations of technology standards.

(As is the case here,) overly conservative interpretations promote
misunderstanding of the intent of the GPL and allow organizations who are
not interested in the meaning of the GPL to gain benefit by affiliating
themselves with it.  Worse, an organization might rely on a conservative
interpretation of the GPL to protect their software, where such protection
is not actually afforded.  (Commercial protection is not the intent or in
the spirit of the GPL.)

The best scenario is one in which the GPL is applied as intended by
organizations who understand its implications.  For projects where the GPL
does not match the business model well, a different license or licensing
scheme would be applied.

Ultimately, a world in which free software is allowed to flourish under
terms equally acceptable to its users and developers will provide the
greatest advancement of humanitarian and humanist goals.

yellow_emperor wrote:

Another team might decide to include db4o inside a web-service or eventing framework.  An interface to an object-persistence layer could be conceived, designed, implemented (as Java classes for example) and published to the public domain.  A module that adapts the db4o interface to the framework interface would be required to inherit the GPL if distributed.  But other modules that worked within the framework would not be required to inherit the GPL, even if they had to compile against the (public domain) interface.