Re: Berkeley DB 6.0 license change to AGPLv3
2013/7/4 Ondřej Surý <email@example.com>:
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> > 2) We need to pick the Berkeley DB version compatible with all
>> > packages that use the library.
>> I think this is roughly the same issue as (1), unless you mean a
>> technical rather than a licensing issue.
> It is a more technical issue, but based on licensing issue. We need to pick
> BDB version with license which is compatible with all packages that uses it.
Strictly regarding the technical problem I think Ben's suggestion would work:
2013/7/2 Ben Hutchings <email@example.com>:
> On Tue, 2013-07-02 at 09:35 -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:15:15AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
>> > Again, why do you plan on removing free software from main due to a
>> > change in license?
>> As algernon points out, it makes slightly more sense when you remember
>> that the AGPLv3 is not compatable with the GPLv2
>> I'm still against removing it from the archive.
> But the new version should not build the default libdb-dev, as that is
> likely to result in unintended GPLv2/v3 combinations that cannot be
We could keep libdb-dev for the fork keeping the current license and
create a new set of
development packages like libdb6-dev for the AGPLv3 code with or
without switching to an
upstream different from Oracle.
Packages depending on more liberally licensed Berkeley DB won't switch
the AGPLv3 this way.