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

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

On 06/20/2014 05:57 PM, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> Please let's not have this discussion again. There are more problems
> with Berkeley DB than just relicensing.
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014, at 09:47, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> 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?
> Clicking few times on [Thread Next] would really help you and me:
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2013/07/msg00020.html
> Incompatible BDB rdepends:
> 389-ds-base: GPLv2-only
> [... snip ...]
> zeroc-ice: GPLv2-only
> 1. BTW this links 4-clause BSD with GPL code within the same source
> 2. SISSL is not GPL compatible according to Wikipedia
> 3. And a couple of files under UNKNOWN license :)
> 4. AFAIK GPL-incompatible
> 5. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#IBMPL
> 6. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#QPL
> 7. However this case might be the borderline case as outlined here:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins
> O.

So, do I understand well that it's your view that just linking with
AGPLv3 make it mandatory to re-license using AGPLv3? Is there such a
clause in the AGPLv3 license?


Reply to: