Re: Berkeley DB 6.0 license change to AGPLv3
On 2 July 2013 17:58, Nick Andrik <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 2013/7/2 Russ Allbery <email@example.com>:
>> 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.
Looking at db5.3 copyright file, I see copyright holders:
INRIA, France Telecom
The President and Fellows of Harvard University
The Regents of the University of California
So is the whole code base re-licensed? or only the changes that Orcale
is making here-after?