Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> An AGPL licenced libdb isn't particularly useful for us, though. It'd
> mean distributing a fair amount of software including exim, postfix,
> squid, webalizer, dovecot and many other servers under the AGPL, which
> would mean patching them so you could download the source code through
> them.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the
Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users
interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version
supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding
Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source
from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary
means of facilitating copying of software.
It's probably a stretch to claim that users interact with exim, postfix and
dovecot over the network. In any case, the AGPL does not require that the
program be a quine; it'd certainly be acceptable for a comment to be output
over SMTP (for example) with an URL to download the source.
> I think we should just keep libdb5.3 until a suitable replacement shows
> up.
I assume this is going to be dealt with upstream in each affected peice of
software. The only risk seems to be if an upstream upgrades without being
aware of the license change.
--
see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature