On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 06:39:30AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Michael Banck <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > People have pointed out upthread that Oracle does not appear to be theThat would only work if the Sleepycat license and the AGPLv3 are
> > sole copyright holder of BerkelyDB. So unless they had copyright
> > assignments or similar on file, maybe a viable route would be to contact
> > those additional copyright holders and suggest they complain to Oracle
> > in order to get their relicensing reversed.
> > This should probably be done in coordination with the wider Free
> > Software community.
> >From my understanding, the other copyright holders' opinion doesn't
> really matter – even if they relicense just the parts they own the
> whole work will be distributed under stricter license (e.g. AGPLv3).
> But feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
compatible I guess, is that the case? Otherwise, I would assume the
result not to be distributable.