nk4um

Music to my ears :)

Thanks

Hi Sam,

The bootloader source can be found here...

http://1060.org/upload/bootloader-1.1.2.src.tar.gz

Like Tony said, incompetence is a more likely explanation than conspiracy!  You''ll see there''s not much to it.  We''ll fix the build to make sure the source gets shipped in future. Although we''re getting very close to the first NK4 preview cycle - NK4 has a completely configurable boot model to make it fully embeddable.

Cheers,

Peter

Dear Tony,

Thanks for confirming that the source code for those files has been omitted from the releases by mistake - until now, I found it totally impossible to assess whether NetKernel was really open source or not.

At the moment, I''m not especially dependent on seeing the source code for those files. However, for the sake of other newcomers, and for the principles of open source, I would be glad to see the omissions rectified in the next release. It might also be an idea for you to provide all the missing source files in a supplementary download for 3.3.1 as an interim measure.

Regards,

Sam

Yes you''re right. The bootloader jar isn''t in the distribution. That isn''t deliberate but just a consequence of an omission build system. It isn''t very exciting though. Let me know if you''d like a copy by sending me a private email and I''ll reply with a copy.

http://www.1060.org/forum/post/new-message?id=3

Cheers,
Tony

Actually the fact that we provide all of our source code is not a factor here.

Am I wrong in thinking that not all of the NetKernel''s source code is publicly available - e.g. the source to the .class files within 1060netkernel-bootloader-1.1.2.jar?

If no, doesn''t this imply that any applications shipping NK have to open their code?

Actually this is true anyway. The 1060 Public License is similar to the Sleepycat license in that it introduces obligations to the user to provide OSI license code for applications built on it - so the answers to your question is yes, but its premise has absolutely nothing to do with Oracle.

We try to strike a fair balance - if you''re open we''re open, if you''re closed then please come and discuss commercial licensing with 1060 Research on fair and reasonable terms.

Cheers,

Peter

Hi Carlos,

Actually the fact that we provide all of our source code is not a factor here.  We actually do not ship any Berkeley code or libraries in any form whatsover and so there is no concern at all about licensing.

The BDBXML library is a shell set of accessors that will provide access to a BDBXML repository once it is set up on the host machine and the relevant java interface libraries are installed.

Specifically from our guide the installation says...

Installation Since BDXML is a native library with Java JNI native intefaces you must set the JVM property <b>java.library.path</b> with the path to the BDBXML native library files (on Windows these are dll''s found in the bin/ directory of the BDBXML install, on Linux they are in /usr/lib/ ). Add the following switch to the Java command line -Djava.library.path=[path to dbxml libraries] in the bin/start.sh script. You must also locate db.jar and dbxml.jar from the BDBXML installation directory (/usr/share/java on Linux) and copy or symlink these to [install]/lib/native directory of your NetKernel installation. Please note: due to the JNI native library dependency do not put the dbxml jar files in the db-xml module''s lib/ directory.

So using NetKernel out of the box has no implications for licensing from Oracle.  However, and just like any other platform, if you do set up and access a BDBXML repository then you may need to consider the implications of the sleepycat license to your application.  We cannot tell you what the interpretation of using the Java interface libraries to talk to a standalone DBDXML instance is -  if in doubt contact Oracle.

On another note - there are other XML repositories out there.  It is very straightforward to take our BDBXML module and port the accessor iternals to work with Exist for example.   Our module has a generic design so maps easily to other backend DB engines.

Hope this settles your concerns.

Peter

I wonder if the following licensing restriction has affected anyone on the list. Berkeley DB, which was originally owned by Sleepycat Software which was later acquired by Oracle, has the following listed on its licensing page:

============
our open source license permits you to use Berkeley DB, Berkeley DB Java Edition or Berkeley DB XML at no charge under the condition that if you use the software in an application you redistribute, the complete source code for your application must be available and freely redistributable under reasonable conditions. If you do not want to release the source code for your application, you may purchase a license from Oracle.
============

I realize the NK ships with its source code, but how do companies doing development with NK handle this? Are they required to pay a license fee to Oracle for the privilege of keeping their source code to themselves? Does 1060 pay the license? If yes, how does the license fee get paid? If no, doesn''t this imply that any applications shipping NK have to open their code?

Inquiring minds want to know...