When you say “common”, do you mean a license that is broadly used by many open source projects or a single license used for all dependencies for jdbm2.x?
I certainly like both BSD and Apache, but those licenses require an explicit process to manage contributions. LGPL might be worth considering – its “viral” qualities force derived works under the license while not crossing the “library” boundary. I am not familiar with EPL (Eclipse Public License), but I will take a look at it.
The CognitiveWeb is using a JOSL-style license which builds in much of the language that you see with, e.g., the apache process for contributions. There has been a movement recently to reduce the #of open source licenses, as well as to signed contributor agreements. The latter can result in simpler licenses since they move the language governing contributions out of the license and into the contributor agreements, at the cost of more process overhead for the project. Simpler licenses – or those with more “brand” certainly can make it easier for people to do “at a glance” use of an open source project, but a FAQ can also disclose the salient aspects of a license for most people.
From: Alex Boisvert [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:43 PM
To: Thompson, Bryan B.
Cc: Kevin Day; JDBM Developer listserv
Subject: Re: [Jdbm-developer] Preliminary work on version manager is ready to commit...
On the repository side, I think we have 3-4 options:
-SourceForge (CVS or SVN which is now available)
I think it would be wise pick to a single hosting site and use all of their services (bug tracking, version control, wiki, ...)
And on the licensing, I think we should try to pick a common license to reduce legal headaches for any user of the software. I'm thinking along the lines of plain BSD, Apache or possibly EPL. Of course copyright holders would retain their rigths and we would need to gather everyone's support for a change of licensing or possibly consider dropping code if we can't agree on a new license.
Anything wrong with our current BSD-style license?
Thompson, Bryan B. wrote:
Sounds interesting. I just fixed the deadlock detection code and integrated it into the 2PL locking support. This does not support intention locks (you can not describe a hierarchy of resources), but it should support basic 2PL. I am working on an optimization to the deadlock detection code and I hope to release a beta by Monday.
I take it that you mean that the notion of consistency for the design that you have does not use any notion of transactions within a page manager layer such as DBCache. Is that of necessity or just how you developed it? The DBCache  implementation will let you force a page to the db at any time, but that is probably not what you are looking for. In any case, I am sure that we will get a chance to discuss the relationship between the version/transaction manager and page caching :-)
I am not sure how best to proceed with respect to a jdbm2.x code base. Anything that is derived from jdbm1.x is of course under the existing license terms, but new modules can be under a different license as long as they do not share code or have explicit copyright grants from all authors.
On Behalf Of Kevin Day
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 10:16 AM
To: JDBM Developer listserv
Subject: [Jdbm-developer] Preliminary work on version manager is ready to commit...
OK - finally had time to finish up work on the proof of concept for the version and transaction manager for jdbm2. This is just proof of concept, but I'd like to ask you guys to take a look at the unit test and let me know if you see anything that you think should be tested for that isn't, etc...
The current implementation has been tested for transaction isolation for overlapping transactions, properly purging of unneeded data, etc...
The algorithm has been designed with aborts and roll-back in mind, but I have not put unit tests in place for that yet (tomorrow maybe), and the code for properly purging aborted tx from the transaction manager still needs to be put in place (Basically, aborted tx can't be removed from the master transaction list until the garbage collector has run one full iteration).
The algorithms are designed to allow writing to the data store at any point - regardless of whether a transaction is comitted or not. A warning: this is *very* different from the dbCache design, which relies on only writing comitted data to the data store (or jumping through hoops to allow for roll-back if uncomitted data is written to the store).
The current proof of concept system has no caching - all changes to the data are written directly to the store (which is in-memory right now - nothing to disk, etc...). This means that there is absolutely no distinction between regular transactions and very long transactions - the algorithm treats them all the same (and works :-) ). This means that handling of VLR will become a caching policy implementation detail - not something that requires special handling in the transaction or version managers (this is a good thing, I think).
So - where should I commit the code to? Alex - should I create a separate folder for jdbm2 exploratory stuff in the jdbm SF project? Should we create a new SF project (for licensing reasons)?
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Jdbm-developer mailing list Jdbmemail@example.com https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jdbm-developer