Bitcoin Forum

Taken from the documentation of the source:

Licenses of statically linked libraries:
wxWidgets      LGPL 2.1 with very liberal exceptions
Berkeley DB    New BSD license with additional requirement that linked software must be free open source
Boost             MIT-like license
miniupnpc      New (3-clause) BSD license

What do you have to say to that, CoinHunter?

Berkeley is owned by _ORACLE_. Report CoinHunter to Oracle's legal department. They just love suing people. Ask SAP.

Oracle charges money for any non-FOSS use of Berkeley DB. CoinHunter owes them a large sum now.

If that's true - I think it's totally not within the spirit of a BSD style license.  Oracle shouldn't use the term 'BSD License' if they want to put copyleft in there.

Seems this whole debacle keeps getting better and deeper. Almost like instead of being 6 feet under its more like 60 feet under.

He's like a kid in a candy store. Oracle charges money for non-free use of Berkeley DB and the more people that report this violation of their IP to them the more trouble CoinHunter may be in.

You're welcome for the candy, smoothie. :)

I've dealt with Oracle, 'a large sum' is very, very, much understating it.

1. Don't piss into the wind.
2. Don't fuck with oracle.

Join us in reporting him!

It's how they estimate user base to calculate damages to demand. :)

E-mail to piracy@oracle.com to report.

Don't forget to tell them that several business (bitparking, ruxum, mooncoin) are using this commercially. Oracle loves to sue companies because there is more money to get from them. Not sure if coinhunter aka Ken Solid (according to http://www.ip-adress.com/whois/solidcoin.info (http://www.ip-adress.com/whois/solidcoin.info)) can satisfy Oracles money hunger alone ;)

That is one reason that the BSD OSs still use the 1.8 version of BDB,  as that was a pure bsd licenced version.

However, did you actually read the sleepycat license for the 4.7 versions or are you solely going by the bitcoin developers quick one line summary?   The license itself only says that source code must be available by being included or being made available for no more then distribution costs.  No where does it say what specific  redistribution terms must be on that source code itself, just that they have to be 'reasonable' for redistributions.  They are not using the OSI definitions here that you are. No where do they say you have to allow reuse in other projects.

Anybody reported that already?

Wrong turn! Solidcoin isn't close source, just license limited.
LGPL allows this, MIT allows it, BSD allows it... the only viral license is GPL.

Nothing Oracle can do... it's up to the users to use or not CoinHunter's stuff.

Actually, CoinHunter's "You can't modify it without my permission" makes it proprietary software, even if source is available. I may have the source but I can't edit it according to CoinHunter. Remember, free and open source software, free != free as in beer. The Sleepycat license is only for software which isn't distributed.

This from the guy who's threatening to put viruses in the Bitcoin block chain.

I don't play WoW and I've never had any WoW gold, either.

EVERYBODY STOP

And let us take a second to appreciate what a piece of shit "game" World of Warcraft is, where wolftaur felt it necessary, and rightly so, to make sure it is known no matter what, he doesn't play WoW.

He made his own changes proprietary, that's the surplus of LGPL and all OSI when compared to GPL, and simple as that... he can do it.

A small issue about this, I don't give a f**k about software licenses... so for me he might well print that in stained toilet paper. But for people caring for that... well... he can do what he did.

How does that invalidate wolftaur claim that solidcoin as a whole is now proprietary? Because without coinhunters changes it would no longer be solidcoin.

It doesn't, it is proprietary but not in violation of any license it crossed.

Oracle allows the use of Berkeley DB under BSD-ish terms for software which is free open source. SolidCoin is _not_ free open source.

Free does not mean "costs no money", free means I can actually use the source. CoinHunter is not providing source code for use, he is providing source code for compilation only.

The Free in FOSS means free as in freedom, not free as in free beer. Oracle's extension of a no-cost Berkeley DB license applies only to two types of software:

1. The software is not distributed.
2. The software is under an FOSS license, which means licenses in which you have the right to _USE_ the source code: including editing it. Not simply being able to DOWNLOAD it so you can compile it for a system a prebuilt binary isn't available for.

When CoinHunter prohibited changes without his authorization, it stopped being open-source. It became proprietary software that the source code is available for as an installation method.

http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/berkeleydb/downloads/licensing-098979.html (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/berkeleydb/downloads/licensing-098979.html)
As the solidcoin license is not an OSI approved license, it depends on your interpretation of "under reasonable conditions". It could be that Oracle does not see the "no-one-is-allowed-to-use-this-without-my-explicit-approval" license as reasonable conditions.
Maybe we should just let Oracle decide?

That was my point. Oracle might decide they don't care, but CoinHunter's actions do not fall under "this is clearly allowed" as some argued.

Nice of you to just skip over my earlier post where I  quote from the actual text of the license.   Now you use Stallman's sophomoric and idiotic free as in speech, free as in freedom and free as in beer language.  Here is the interesting thing, the GPL is not free.     It's use of the term is doublespeak and a lie, and the sophomoric attempts at the free is in beer hand waving don't change that. 

Anyway, if you read my original post or the license itself, you will see  it is not talking about FOSS,  heck remember BSD 4.4 which had BDB 1.8.  The formation of Sleepycat was in response to Netscape's request for commercial support. It  all predates ers's writings that set about the OSI and all the definitions you are trying to shoehorn into the license.   They are not part of this license.  The OSI movement itself was opposed to by Stallman actually.  The license says just what I wrote in the post you conveniently ignored.   It does not say what you seem to keep implying it does. 



Now SC is in violation current, though not at all for the reasons that you say.  All he needs to do to come back into compliance is add a link to get the source code to his about window text.    He can actually keep his ridiculous permissions clause, and still meet the Sleepycat license.

Actually it would be in the end a judge who would get to decide under the reasonable persons legal fiction.  I think Oracle would have to send out a C&D to first to even have a chance to be able to collect damages later.  At that point, the two days of coding to replace BDB could be done.

Berkeley DB's author only authorizes the use of the software under the Sleepycat license only for use in software which is not distributed. As SolidCoin is distributed the Sleepycat license is not available.

To be clear, I disagree with his change, I just don't see any real clear cut  license violations from it.

LoL...  please quote the licence that says that.

Since Linux distributions  use the software under that license are you saying that they are not distributed?  If they are why has oracle not sued Red Hat etc?

I understand, and if I somehow implied I thought you supported his change that wasn't my intention.

Although I will note he did violate the Bitcoin license as well, by removing copyright notices the MIT license stated had to remain and similar things -- though that was already debated in another thread I think. As to whether he violated Oracle's IP rights that'd be something a judge or jury decides if Oracle pursues it that far, but there's certainly enough questions around it to raise the issue to them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_DB#Licensing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_DB#Licensing)

Linux distributions include Berkeley DB under the license Oracle allows for FOSS. For programs which are not FOSS, Oracle allows use under the terms of the Sleepycat license provided the program is not distributed.

As SolidCoin is not FOSS, it is not authorized to use the BSD-variant license Oracle extends for FOSS. As SolidCoin is distributed, it is not authorized to use the Sleepycat license Oracle extends for software that is not distributed.

Oracle's own page on the subject states an OSI-approved license on the included software authorizes the use of Berkeley DB under the BSD-variant license, and SolidCoin's "you can't change it unless I say you can" license certainly is not OSI-approved.

I posted that before I saw your reply,  so your reply just happened to get in between.  I was just trying to head off any potential confusion between defending someone's right to do something and agreeing with it before someone may have thought otherwise.


He is indeed in violation of the Bitcoin license,  and maybe even the current  bitcoin devs themselves are by removing the original author's name and not just adding and enumerating themselves?  I don't know if he agreed with that or it was just done after his disappeared, and up to them to care or not.    Things like this remind me how the public domain software is the least angst filled at times.  

Unfortunately,  legal action is not cheap.  Especially cross boarder like this.   First step would be C&D letters, and SC coming into conformance on these two violations would be pretty easy for them to do and not reverse his new clause.   Really leaves the cost effective options to be to fork 1.03 of SC, ignore SC and hope enough others do, create a new improved fork, or concentrate energies only on bitcoin or another fork.   I personally don't see a violation of the BDB license I have from BDB 4.7 that is being used  (don't think it has changed, but am including  the specific versions just in case), and it would be easy enough to remove the BDB dependency if a c&d was sent). So not sure what would be gained from the *coind world even if it was found to be a violation.
 

I am not using wikipedia (Which also claims bitcoin is good for micro payments last I looked also), nor Oracle's web page summaries, written much later and after they purchased Sleepycat software.  If someone cares enough it may be a good idea to correct the wikipedia entry.  The link they make to the modern defination of 'Free and Open source' could be misleading.  I was reading the actual text of the license which as I mentioned earlier was written before the term FOSS existed, so it does not refer to or mean FOSS in it since that did not exist when it was written, and does not include such terms.  It is the license itself that maters not what Wikipedia says, or even Oracle's web site at this time.  What matters is the license for BDB 4.7.   As it predated FOSS (as a term) and the OSI none of the concepts are mentioned in it as requirements.