[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Berkeley DB 6.0 license change to AGPLv3

2013/7/2 Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>:
> I don't believe the AGPL was ever intended to be used for libraries.
> Quite a bit of the license is very difficult to interpret as applied to a
> library.  (For example, does that mean that every application using the
> library has to provide a URL to download the source of the *library*?  Is
> the user interacting with the library directly over the network?)
> I think this one is all on Oracle.  They're using a license that was never
> intended for a basic infrastructure library, quite possibly in an attempt
> to make it obnoxious and excessively onerous to use the open source
> version, or to create a situation where nearly all users of their library
> are violating some technical term of the license (or at least are close
> enough that a lawsuit wouldn't be immediately thrown out) and therefore
> can be shaken down for cash if Oracle feels like it.

Since AGPLv3 is really similar to GPLv3 but mostly oriented for
webapplications, would it make sense to contact Oracle with the
concerns raised in this thread and ask for clarification and possible
consideration to change to license to GPLv3 instead?

There could be some possibility that the choice of AGPL over GPL was
not well considered by their part with all the issues that raises.

On the other hand, with Oracle one can never be sure, but at least
contacting them will make the problem more widely apparent and their
ittentions more clear.


Reply to: