incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Goson zhang <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache TubeMQ (Incubating) 0.8.0-incubating RC2
Date Thu, 11 Feb 2021 05:20:23 GMT
Hi Daniel && Justin && all:

What should we do in this situation?

When we open sourced the project, we did a LICENSE analysis for all
dependent packages, and adjusted to exclude unfriendly protocol components;
for Berkeley DB JE (Java Edition), as Daniel said, the Berkeley DB JE (Java
Edition) LICENSEs are Inconsistent before and after version, the version
before 7.XY was the GNU AGPL v3 protocol, but it became the Apache V2
version in 7.XY, so we adopted the 7.X.Y version as our dependent component.

We are not very professional in this area, so we would like to seek the
opinions of experts:

1. Can we meet the requirements of this open source agreement by
restricting the version of this component to 7.X.Y?
For Berkeley DB JE (Java Edition), this component itself is TubeMQ to store
metadata and switch between active and standby. It is not very deep, but it
need to take some time to adjust.

2. Or have to switch to other components?
If so, for this release,  do I restore the "WIP" label to complete the
version release first?
Then adjust the implementation plan later, and finally remove this
component in the final version.


Daniel Widdis <> 于2021年2月11日周四 下午12:49写道:

> I believe there may be some confusion between Berkeley DB which is indeed
> GNU AGPL v3, and Berkeley DB JE (Java Edition) which was previously GNU
> AGPL v3 but switched to Apache License 2.0 with the 7.3.7 release.
> Current Berkeley DB JE license is at [3]
> 3.
> On 2/10/21, 8:25 PM, "Justin Mclean" <> wrote:
>     Hi,
>     > We should have discussed this issue [1], and in August 2020, I sent
> an
>     > email to in accordance with the
> requirements
>     > of [2] to clarify my question, but it not responded to me. And the
>     > of we choosed 7.3.7 berkeleydb,  is licensed under Apache V2 license.
>     My concern is that is not under the Apache license. The link here
> (which you provided) is that it is OS only is it is not for commercial use
> [1]. Also [1] points to [2] which states it’s GPL which is not compatible
> with the Apache V2 license.
>     Thanks,
>     Justin
>     1.
>     2.
>     ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>     To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>     For additional commands, e-mail:

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message