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

Re: New project goal: Get rid of Berkeley DB (post jessie)

On 06/19/2014 06:42 PM, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014, at 12:33, Svante Signell wrote:
>> On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 11:38 +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> <with my Berkeley DB maintainer hat + downstream packages>
>>> my view is that Berkeley DB is dead since Oracle relicenced it to AGPL3;
>> What is wrong with that license, and what was it before?
> I am quite sure you are capable of Google and Wikipedia, but anyway here
> you go:
> <CALjhHG8D_ZWDb2+fejK63o418Tq8cSwc8Y5eV5czgLDZGJ2_sA@mail.gmail.com>
> + responses in d-d and d-legal...
> and here's the summary by LWN:
> https://lwn.net/Articles/557820/
> O.

Hi Ondrej,

Thanks for the links, though I don't think that's very helpful. [That
LWN article tells about the fact that you worry about the AGPL license
and links back to things you wrote btw.]

Respectfully, this is only your own opinion. Maybe I'm wrong, but I
myself fail to see why the AGPLv3 is a problem. And I don't understand
why you wrote that "the AGPLv3 is not very friendly to downstream
projects". IMO it is only unfriendly with proprietary SaaS, which isn't
the concern of Debian, right?

It'd be nice if you explained more clearly why you think this way.


Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Reply to: