Discussions

News: Versant embraces db4o community, fortifies open source ODBMS

  1. The db4o community has delivered a quality product to the Java and .NET embedded markets and has gained a vast community of users and partners. Versant believes there is an increasing need for simplification of object based persistence without sacrificing on scalability and performance optimization. It takes time to deliver such solutions to market. db4o is doing a tremendous job in showing the software development community there are better alternatives to using mapping persistence for applications with increasingly complex models. Versant plans to continue the development of this technology, improving it with the help of the db4o community and expanding the open source value. In an effort to increase the value proposition, parts of db4o previously available exclusively to subscribers, will now be released to the community. Versant’s commercial product is an enterprise scale distributed object database. This product has been chosen by leaders in the Telecommunications, Defense, Finance, Web and Transportation markets, to power their world class applications. Versant’s expertise gained over a decade in OODB development will be leveraged to accelerate higher level features into the db4o open source solution. Robert Greene Open Source Operations db4o – database for objects Versant Corporation
  2. Less restricting license?[ Go to top ]

    It would be very cool if you could offer db4o under a less restricting license than GPL. Of course, I understand the need for commercial license. But still...
  3. Re: Less restricting license?[ Go to top ]

    +1 GPL license is a pain in the ass for software developers.
  4. Re: Less restricting license?[ Go to top ]

    Agreed, less restrictive license would be a great move to make Object databases more popular. It is difficult to sell Object database to your manager or customer : not only it is based on "strange" technology, but the license is more restrictive than what "traditional" Open source RDBMS offers. Also, db4o commercial license is pretty strange (no non-royalty based model etc.)
  5. Re: Less restricting license?[ Go to top ]

    I'd second that. A better license will get more traction in the community and perhaps add more hands to fill out the object to relational replication projects. As a customer, I can't say enough about the product, its absolutely hands down the best object database I've worked with. And their sharper project (java-->c# translation) is pretty interesting as well. Jin
  6. "Embraces"? More like "acquires":
    db4objects, Inc. sells its object database business to Versant Corporation in order to focus on Servo, its ground-breaking user data management service
    http://www.db4o.com/about/news/release/2008_12_04.aspx
  7. Hi. I just wanted to answer some of the comments in this thread. "It would be very cool if you could offer db4o under a less restricting license than GPL" Don't forget db4o offers the db4o Free/Libre and Open Source Compatibility Software License Agreement (dOCL) since 2006 which allows the inclusion of db4o in open source projects using other types of OSS licenses. See http://www.db4o.com/about/company/legalpolicies/docl.aspx "It is difficult to sell Object database to your manager or customer : not only it is based on 'strange' technology, but the license is more restrictive than what 'traditional' Open source RDBMS offers" If you check MySQL you'll see that they are also using a dual licensing scheme based on the GPL (http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/oem) so this 'traditional' open source RDBMS ends up being pretty similar to db4o in terms of licensing. BTW thanks Jin for the Kudos =) Best! German Viscuso (db4objects)
  8. Don't forget db4o offers the db4o Free/Libre and Open Source Compatibility Software License Agreement (dOCL) since 2006 which allows the inclusion of db4o in open source projects using other types of OSS licenses. See http://www.db4o.com/about/company/legalpolicies/docl.aspx

    "It is difficult to sell Object database to your manager or customer : not only it is based on 'strange' technology, but the license is more restrictive than what 'traditional' Open source RDBMS offers"

    If you check MySQL you'll see that they are also using a dual licensing scheme based on the GPL (http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/oem) so this 'traditional' open source RDBMS ends up being pretty similar to db4o in terms of licensing.

    BTW thanks Jin for the Kudos =)

    Best!

    German Viscuso (db4objects)
    I don't think you can compare with MySQL for licensing. That's not because MySQL uses dual licensing that db4o can do the same thing with the same success. IMHO db4o promoters have a hard time when "fighting" managers on 2 (!) sides, oo database technology and dual licensing. Dominique http://www.jroller.com/dmdevito
  9. IMHO db4o promoters have a hard time when "fighting" managers on 2 (!) sides, oo database technology and dual licensing.
    Well, you can tell your manager that these 2 are strengths not weaknesses =D a) An oo database certainly has an edge for many use cases (otherwise oo databases wouldn't exist) b) Having a dual license gives you the best of both worlds: an open source ecosystem around the product and a classic commercial approach for companies that won't go with open source Best regards (and happy holidays for all users of TheServerside!!) German
  10. Don't forget db4o offers the db4o Free/Libre and Open Source Compatibility Software License Agreement (dOCL) since 2006 which allows the inclusion of db4o in open source projects using other types of OSS licenses.
    That doesn't really help much. Let's face it, Java is used mostly for closed-source enterprise projects.
    If you check MySQL you'll see that they are also using a dual licensing scheme based on the GPL (http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/oem) so this 'traditional' open source RDBMS ends up being pretty similar to db4o in terms of licensing.
    There's a difference. I can write my closed-source application which uses MySQL without 'infecting' it with GPL since I only use it via standard JDBC interface, so the 'mere aggregation' clause of the GPL kicks in. And of course I'll happily distribute MySQL source code along with my application to comply with the rest of the GPL. It's impossible to do this with db4o, because I must directly link it with my application. That'll make it a 'derived work' by any reasonable definition. Also, I mostly use PostgreSQL which has a nice BSD license.
  11. It's impossible to do this with db4o, because I must directly link it with my application. That'll make it a 'derived work' by any reasonable definition
    Granted, having to link the library makes the situation more restrictive. But the decision was to go with a licensing based model on the commercial side which would be impossible to sustain with a BSD license, MIT, LGPL or similar (it's very difficult for some companies to survive on support and related activities only (not impossible certainly but difficult depending on scale)). If you're a company doing closed source Java development you can probably afford the db4o commercial licensing and support options (which are more than acceptable imho). If you're an individual who loves open source, you can go with the dOCL and include db4o in your open source software for free (like the guys maintaining RSSOwl for example: http://www.rssowl.org) Best regards (have great holidays!) German