Closed-source SolidCoin violates Berkeley DB license

[wolftaur]

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?

[wolftaur]

Well if his newest post on the Solidcoin forum is any indication, he is very unapologetic, thinks everyone over here is an idiot and  will not budge on the license.

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.

[julz]

Taken from the documentation of the source:

Berkeley DB    New BSD license with additional requirement that linked software must be free open source

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.

[smoothie]

Well if his newest post on the Solidcoin forum is any indication, he is very unapologetic, thinks everyone over here is an idiot and  will not budge on the license.

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.

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

[wolftaur]

Well if his newest post on the Solidcoin forum is any indication, he is very unapologetic, thinks everyone over here is an idiot and  will not budge on the license.

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.

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

Smoothie, has anyone told you that you are fucking annoying the past 5 minutes LOL 

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.

[sd]

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.

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.

[wolftaur]

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.

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.

[wolftaur]

@wolftaur

How about a Report Link?

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

[aq]

@wolftaur

How about a Report Link?

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) can satisfy Oracles money hunger alone

[twobits]

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?

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.

[jackjack]

Anybody reported that already?

[BCEmporium]

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.

[wolftaur]

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.

[wolftaur]

I honestly don't think I have ever seen a dumber bunch of people in my life.  Have fun killing yourselves when someone steals your WoW gold....

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.

[BitcoinPorn]

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.

[BCEmporium]

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.

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.

[aq]

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.

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.

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

[BCEmporium]

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.

[wolftaur]

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.

[aq]

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.

http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/berkeleydb/downloads/licensing-098979.html

What open source license should I use?
Oracle recognizes the common open source licenses, including the GPL and the BSD license, as open source licenses. In general, licenses recognized by opensource.org meet the Oracle requirements of "freely redistributable under reasonable conditions."

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?