On 11/09/2012 05:27 PM, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
BDB/Sleepycat is a pretty unusual license -- it doesn't have a use-the-same-license condition, but does have a source condition, and a really aggressive one at that ("complete source code for the DB software and any accompanying software that uses the DB software"). I'm not certain how this can be GPL compatible or OSD compliant, unless "uses" is interpreted in a way that just happens to be less than or equal in scope to the GPL's conception of derivative works -- see section 9 of http://opensource.org/osd-annotated
I'm sure these have been discussed extensively but I wish the FSF and OSI provided references on the relevant pages. :)
I can't locate it at the moment, but there is or has been an informational webpage at oracle.com on the Sleepycat License that notes that it is GPL-compatible. I have interpreted that, plus the FSF's assessment, to mean that the Sleepycat License must be read in such a way that it is GPL-compatible; therefore the scope implied by "any accompanying software that uses" can be no broader than the scope implied by the GPL (whatever that might be).
The OSI decision would follow from the assumption of GPL compatibility, though I suspect that that is not why the OSI chose to certify the Sleepycat License as OSI-compliant. Perhaps there's some information in the license-discuss archives. If one assumes that the OSI made its decisions with the OSD in mind, "any accompanying software that uses" must somehow be harmonized with OSD #9 ("The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.") Of course the Sleepycat License is assumed to be DFSG-conformant as well.
The likely sociological reality is that the license was just grandfathered into the system.
- RF