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? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53a46630.6010...@debian.org
