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

Re: Berkeley DB 6.0 license change to AGPLv3

2013/7/4 Ondřej Surý <ondrej@sury.org>:
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@ebb.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 <ben@decadent.org.uk>:
> 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
> distributed.

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
automatically to
the AGPLv3 this way.


Reply to: