(Written on my phone).
I have worked with original information from Florian's follow-up to transition
bug. Sorry for not checking apt license myself. Anyway... effectivelly
relicensing apt to GPL-3 might not be a problem for apt (and all its rev-deps),
but it is a still problem for all other software under other licenses.
Changing BSD-style license (with open the source clause) to (A)GPL-3 for a
widely used library is a problem. There's no misunderstanding here.
Also it would cultivate the debate here if you have presented your arguments
(e.g. explain why I might be mistaken) instead of presenting just the ad
hominem arguments. Thanks.
Ondřej Surý
> On 2. 7. 2013, at 16:57, Clint Adams <cl...@debian.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 03:36:57PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>> apt-get is licensed GPLv2 and thus incompatible with AGPLv3.
>
> No, apt is GPL-2+.
>
>> cyrus-{imapd,sasl} has BSD-style license and thus incompatible with AGPLv3.
>> OpenLDAP has BSD-style (OpenLDAP) license and thus incompatible with AGPLv3.
>> subversion has Apache 2.0 license and thus incompatible with AGPLv3.
>
> I think you are misunderstanding the AGPL.
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
> Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130702145732.ga15...@scru.org
>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/c8c9196b-b771-4d0e-bf9f-07474910b...@sury.org
