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

Re: Berkeley DB 6.0 license change to AGPLv3

]] Stefano Zacchiroli 

> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:17:13AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > As an upstream for INN, I think doing such a thing would be completely
> > absurd, and would rather just drop Berkeley DB support entirely and make
> > everyone switch to a different overview method than do anything of the
> > sort.
> I'm curious, can you elaborate on why as upstream you'd refuse to add
> something like a protocol command that return a URL pointing to a
> tarball containing the source code of the INN version the users are
> running?

Not all protocols are trivially extendable, and as Russ says, you have
to ensure it's seen by all clients.  I'd not be looking forward how to
bolt that onto OpenLDAP so the offer is seen by all LDAP clients (which
then have to show the offer in their UI somehow, presumably?)


> AGPL is really nothing more than the adaptation of copyleft to a world
> where software usage has shifted from compiled binaries people run on
> their computers, to services they access over the net.

I see a distinct difference between «I'm delivering mail to somebody
(and they have to provide me with an offer to the source code of their
MTA)» and «I'm putting my data into a web service where all the logic
and computation happens on the server side and I'm just seeing the UI
bits (but they have to offer me the source code to the entire
application)».  One of them is an implementation of a standard protocol,
the other is a distributed application.

Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are

Reply to: