Re: Berkeley DB 6.0 license change to AGPLv3
* Philipp Kern:
> On 2013-07-04 10:04, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Stefano Zacchiroli:
>>> I mean, sure, it *is* more tricky to provide such a URL for users that
>>> will be running a *modified* version of INN. But it is exactly the
>>> same
>>> kind of difficulties that people distributing modified copylefted
>>> software will have to face to uphold GPL (or equivalent) terms.
>> We ship package building software which produces source and binary
>> packages. You just copy all of them and are compliant.
>>
>> We currently do not ship a licensing server that helps users with AGPL
>> compliance.
>
> I guess we'd need a way to repack the source used to build into the
> binary, to at least make it possible to add a webserver and serve
> that. (Obviously the binary must allow paths to the source
> configurable in configuration files.)
Or the software could embed a hash of its sources, contact the license
server to obtain a public URL for the corresponding source code from
that hash (with the idea that it will later be provided to clients),
and refuses to start if the license server is unreachable or does not
know anything about the hash.
>> My main concern with the license is that compliance is difficult even
>> for those who have no problem whatsoever with sharing their boring
>> local changes. I'm concerned that we're heading to the Linux (kernel)
>> land where Android and others have made GPL compliance a farce.
>
> Like RedHat? ;-)
We're just using our right to make anonymous changes under the
Dissident Test. :-)
(The sources at
<ftp://ftp.redhat.com/redhat/linux/enterprise/6Server/en/os/SRPMS/kernel-2.6.32-358.11.1.el6.src.rpm>
are used to build the kernel currently shipped to customers.)
Reply to: