The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
There is no mistake in the name, the open source license for Oracle Berkeley DB products is still called the "Sleepycat License" (alternatively the "Sleepycat Public License"). [I] work for Oracle as the Product Manager for Berkeley DB and I worked for Sleepycat for years before the acquisition, I'm in a position to know these things. The Free Software Foundation page listed as a reference is in error. The Open Source Initiative still [lists our license] with the correct name. Please do not rename, my intention today was to add detail to this page so that it is no longer a stub. — Gregory Burd (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Copyright (c) 1990-1999
Sleepycat Software. All rights reserved.
You can see the new version ;) — Neustradamus (✉) 23:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
oppose Unless someone puts forth additional reliable sources indicating that Sleepycat License is incorrect, then I think we should stick with what the copyright holder uses. --Hamitr (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
The page you keep linking to does not say "this is the Berkely Database License." Instead, the page is entitled "Open Source License for Oracle Berkeley DB." Do you see the difference? --Hamitr (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Open Source License for Oracle Berkeley DB = Berkeley Database License not Sleepycat License — Neustradamus (✉) 03:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, but I'm not going to waste any more time trying to convince you. Good luck with your many move requests. --Hamitr (talk) 04:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Again, I'm the guy who authors those pages on Oracle's web site and who is in charge of the license and the contents of the Sleepycat License file itself. Although it's a tad silly I'd be happy to put "Sleepycat License" in the text file for you just to clear up this confusion. This seems a bit silly to me, like the tail wagging the dog, but if it reduces confusion I'm happy to oblige. The bottom line, we (Oracle) call the license "Sleepycat License". Our customers call it that. It's always been referred to as the "Sleepycat License". I don't see why the FSF has unilaterally decided to change the name on their website but unfortunately I don't see an edit link on that page (although I have sent them a nice note telling them that they need to correct their page). The license is called the Sleepycat License. Can we drop this now? ;-) Gregory Burd (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
It is possible to circumvent this strict licensing policy through the purchase of a commercial software license from Oracle Corporation consisting of terms and conditions which are negotiated at the time of sale.
This isn't to do with the licence. Dual licensing is used with various licences, and not all Sleepycat licensed software is dual-licensed (e.g., cryptlib). The reference to Oracle Corporation is probably for a particular Sleepycat-licensed software package. Perhaps this part should be removed.
Now that Oracle Berkeley DB has switched to GNU Affero GPL, the article will need rewriting. The always doubtful alternative name would now be completely misleading. (Something sensible should happen with the redirect too.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)