On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 15:33:41 +0200 Ondřej Surý wrote:
[...]
> So the question remains - if I am to haggle with upstream, then what should
> I propose?
In my own personal opinion?
I would recommend persuading upstream to switch back to the previous
BDB license (the one used up to Berkeley DB 5.3),
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 1:37 AM, brian m. carlson <
sand...@crustytoothpaste.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 04:29:21PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > would FOSS Exception similar to
> > http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/foss-exception/ fix the
> > relicensing problem?
>
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 04:29:21PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> Hi,
>
> would FOSS Exception similar to
> http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/foss-exception/ fix the
> relicensing problem?
>
> If so, I will propose Oracle developers to add the FOSS Exception to
> Berkeley DB licensing.
>
>
Hi,
would FOSS Exception similar to
http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/foss-exception/ fix the
relicensing problem?
If so, I will propose Oracle developers to add the FOSS Exception to
Berkeley DB licensing.
The MySQL FOSS Exception doesn't include 4-clause BSD, so it still might
bar som
* Scott Kitterman:
> Sorry, I can't quite let this pass. I just went and looked at the
> AGPL v3 again and one implication of the license is that you can't
> locally fix a security issue without immediate disclosure. This
> doesn't fit my personal ethics at all and at least IMO makes it
> pretty
On 2013-07-10 13:06:47 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> If you modify the software you might get in trouble but, according to my
> personal ethics, that's the trouble you should have. However, please
> note that as long as you run the software only for yourself, you don't
> have any problem. You
Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Saturday, July 06, 2013 01:52:59 PM Howard Chu wrote:
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Howard Chu:
LMDB doesn't need dirty tricks to look good. (And at only 6KLOCs of
source, there's nowhere to hide any tricks anyway.)
Okay, I found a snag: the 511 bytes limit on the key siz
On Saturday, July 06, 2013 01:52:59 PM Howard Chu wrote:
> Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Howard Chu:
> >> LMDB doesn't need dirty tricks to look good. (And at only 6KLOCs of
> >> source, there's nowhere to hide any tricks anyway.)
> >
> > Okay, I found a snag: the 511 bytes limit on the key size. B
Hi,
On Mittwoch, 10. Juli 2013, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Clint Byrum writes:
> > I do think AGPL complies with all of the clauses of the DFSG. There is
> > very little difference in an AGPLv3 licensed library as a GPLv3 licensed
> > library.
>
> I agree from a licensing standpoint.
>
> I think tha
* Stefano Zacchiroli [130710 13:07]:
> On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 05:41:16PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > No, there is a really important difference. With GPL you only have to be
> > careful when you give binaries to anyone, that you also give the source.
> > This is a bit of a hassle, but wors
Clint Byrum writes:
> I do think AGPL complies with all of the clauses of the DFSG. There is
> very little difference in an AGPLv3 licensed library as a GPLv3 licensed
> library.
I agree from a licensing standpoint.
I think that, from a security standpoint, an AGPLv3 license on a library
puts a
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 09:20:37 AM Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Scott Kitterman's message of 2013-07-10 08:28:54 -0700:
> > On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 05:03:20 PM Bastian Blank wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 03:50:03PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > > > There is just one caveat:
Excerpts from Scott Kitterman's message of 2013-07-10 08:28:54 -0700:
> On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 05:03:20 PM Bastian Blank wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 03:50:03PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > > There is just one caveat: you must make sure to never, ever, distribute
> > > that piece of s
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 05:03:20PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 03:50:03PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > There is just one caveat: you must make sure to never, ever, distribute that
> > piece of software, because once you do, you permanently lose your right to
> > use it
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 05:03:20 PM Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 03:50:03PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > There is just one caveat: you must make sure to never, ever, distribute
> > that piece of software, because once you do, you permanently lose your
> > right to use it wi
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 03:50:03PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> There is just one caveat: you must make sure to never, ever, distribute that
> piece of software, because once you do, you permanently lose your right to
> use it without obnoxious and potentially crippling restrictions.
Not right. Y
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 08:18:12AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Sorry, I can't quite let this pass. I just went and looked at the AGPL v3
> again and one implication of the license is that you can't locally fix a
> security issue without immediate disclosure. This doesn't fit my personal
>
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 01:06:47 PM Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 05:41:16PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > No, there is a really important difference. With GPL you only have to be
> > careful when you give binaries to anyone, that you also give the source.
> > This is
On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 05:41:16PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> No, there is a really important difference. With GPL you only have to be
> careful when you give binaries to anyone, that you also give the source.
> This is a bit of a hassle, but worst case means that you cannot help
> others wit
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Howard Chu:
LMDB doesn't need dirty tricks to look good. (And at only 6KLOCs of
source, there's nowhere to hide any tricks anyway.)
Okay, I found a snag: the 511 bytes limit on the key size. Berkeley
DB's disk format does not impose a limit on key or value size (at
le
* Howard Chu:
> LMDB doesn't need dirty tricks to look good. (And at only 6KLOCs of
> source, there's nowhere to hide any tricks anyway.)
Okay, I found a snag: the 511 bytes limit on the key size. Berkeley
DB's disk format does not impose a limit on key or value size (at
least for B-trees). For
* Stefano Zacchiroli [130704 09:24]:
> I mean, sure, it *is* more tricky to provide such a URL for users that
> will be running a *modified* version of INN. But it is exactly the same
> kind of difficulties that people distributing modified copylefted
> software will have to face to uphold GPL (or
* Philipp Kern:
> On 2013-07-04 10:04, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Stefano Zacchiroli:
>>> I mean, sure, it *is* more tricky to provide such a URL for users that
>>> will be running a *modified* version of INN. But it is exactly the
>>> same
>>> kind of difficulties that people distributing modifie
On 2013-07-04 10:04, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Stefano Zacchiroli:
I mean, sure, it *is* more tricky to provide such a URL for users that
will be running a *modified* version of INN. But it is exactly the
same
kind of difficulties that people distributing modified copylefted
software will have t
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 12:07 AM, Bálint Réczey wrote:
> 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.
>
And if you read the threa
2013/7/4 Ondřej Surý :
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn 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 i
On 2013-07-04 15:00:05 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 02:08:33PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > What about users who patch and rebuild software locally?
>
> That was the second paragraph of my post (that you snipped :)), i.e.:
>
> > I mean, sure, it *is* more tricky
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn 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 iss
Ondřej Surý wrote at 00:36 (EDT):
> (d) Is it ok to switch 106 source packages and their reverse depends
> to AGPLv3?
I think that might be stated a bit more clearly: you won't be changing
the license of the upstream works; you'd be changing the license of the
dowstream whole as it appears in Debi
* Stefano Zacchiroli:
> I mean, sure, it *is* more tricky to provide such a URL for users that
> will be running a *modified* version of INN. But it is exactly the same
> kind of difficulties that people distributing modified copylefted
> software will have to face to uphold GPL (or equivalent) te
Ondřej Surý wrote at 06:29 (EDT):
> As far as I understand it – there are some parts in Berkeley DB source
> code which is just BSD licensed (and the copyright holders are those
> mentioned earlier)[1], then there are parts which were under SleepyCat
> license and presumably the copyright holder fo
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote at 03:14 (EDT):
> So, I wonder, do we have any idea (due to them having already been
> mentioned publicly elsewhere) about the craziest interpretation of
> AGPL that the "evil guys" might come up with and, at the other end of
> the spectrum, the most restrictive one?
> AFA
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 02:08:33PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> What about users who patch and rebuild software locally?
That was the second paragraph of my post (that you snipped :)), i.e.:
> I mean, sure, it *is* more tricky to provide such a URL for users that
> will be running a *modified*
On 2013-07-04 09:23:49 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> I'm curious, can you elaborate on why as upstream you'd refuse to add
> something like a protocol command that return a URL pointing to a
> tarball containing the source code of the INN version the users are
> running? At times, I'm really s
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:29:36PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Michael Banck wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 06:39:30AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> > > >From my understanding, the other copyright holders' opinion doesn't
> > > really matter – even if they r
]] Stefano Zacchiroli
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:17:13AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > As an upstream for INN, I think doing such a thing would be completely
> > absurd, and would rather just drop Berkeley DB support entirely and make
> > everyone switch to a different overview method than do
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Michael Banck wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 06:39:30AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Michael Banck
> wrote:
> > > People have pointed out upthread that Oracle does not appear to be the
> > > sole copyright holder of Ber
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 06:39:30AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Michael Banck wrote:
> > People have pointed out upthread that Oracle does not appear to be the
> > sole copyright holder of BerkelyDB. So unless they had copyright
> > assignments or similar on f
Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:17:13AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> As an upstream for INN, I think doing such a thing would be completely
>> absurd, and would rather just drop Berkeley DB support entirely and
>> make everyone switch to a different overview method than d
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:17:13AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> As an upstream for INN, I think doing such a thing would be completely
> absurd, and would rather just drop Berkeley DB support entirely and make
> everyone switch to a different overview method than do anything of the
> sort.
I'm cur
Hi Bradley, and thanks for your comments.
On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 11:34:38AM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> BTW, I'd suggest a rather unorthodox solution if developers are
> interested: fork this AGPLv3'd version of BDB, and begin making
> substantial improvements and changes under AGPLv3. That
Bradley,
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> [...]
> Upon catching up on this thread, I believe most of what needs to be said
> about the issue for Debian's perspective has been said. Nevertheless, I
> do want to point out that I think three separate issues have been
> conf
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Michael Banck wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 02:48:18PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > If the relicensing is real and not another misconfiguration of the
> > build/release system (like with MySQL docs), this sounds like a
> > shakedown for proprietary u
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 02:48:18PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> If the relicensing is real and not another misconfiguration of the
> build/release system (like with MySQL docs), this sounds like a
> shakedown for proprietary users of Berkeley DB. GPLv2-licensed users
> are collateral damage.
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> On (b), I think the discussion about apt needing to be (effectively)
> AGPLv3-or-later to continue using BDB is salient. I, for one, would
> like to see such a thing, but I'm a biased party who co-authored AGPLv3
> and believe in its policy
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Paul Tagliamonte [130702 15:15]:
>> Again, why do you plan on removing free software from main due to a
>> change in license?
>
> Licenses matter. Just because something it acceptable for Debian
> main does not mean it is a good idea to
Many people off-list have been asking me to comment on this discussion,
because (like Richard Fontana) I'm a co-author of AGPLv3, and I also
(back in the early 2000's) invented the original licensing idea behind
the AGPLv1.
I thus care deeply about the license and believe it's an important
policy
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 06:58:34PM +0200, Nick Andrik wrote:
> > Since AGPLv3 is really similar to GPLv3 but mostly oriented for
> > webapplications, would it make sense to contact Oracle with the
> > concerns raised in this thread and a
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Howard Chu:
We require that fsync() (actually fdatasync()) doesn't lie. Data pages
can be written in any order, as long as all outstanding data pages are
actually written by the time fsync returns. Given this constraint, you
can pull the power on a drive and the DB will
* Howard Chu:
> We require that fsync() (actually fdatasync()) doesn't lie. Data pages
> can be written in any order, as long as all outstanding data pages are
> actually written by the time fsync returns. Given this constraint, you
> can pull the power on a drive and the DB will still be fine.
A
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 21:53:45 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Previous versions of Berkeley DB have been released under the
> Sleepycat license, which is actually a copyleft license.
Right, my bad. I forgot about that oddity.
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Howard Chu:
We can provide plenty more documentation on LMDB performance and
reliability if desired.
Can you cope with incompletely written pages (e.g., only the first 512
bytes of a page is written) or write reordering between fsyncs?
Berkeley DB doesn't deal with to
* Howard Chu:
> We can provide plenty more documentation on LMDB performance and
> reliability if desired.
Can you cope with incompletely written pages (e.g., only the first 512
bytes of a page is written) or write reordering between fsyncs?
Berkeley DB doesn't deal with torn writes, either, but
* Julien Cristau:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 18:58:34 +0200, Nick Andrik wrote:
>
>> Since AGPLv3 is really similar to GPLv3 but mostly oriented for
>> webapplications, would it make sense to contact Oracle with the
>> concerns raised in this thread and ask for clarification and possible
>> conside
* Paul Tagliamonte [130702 15:15]:
> Again, why do you plan on removing free software from main due to a
> change in license?
Licenses matter. Just because something it acceptable for Debian
main does not mean it is a good idea to have something licensed under
a specific license. So removing stuf
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 06:20:48PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> I don't believe I have spread any FUD.
>
[...]
> 2. AGPLv3 is incompatible with Apache 2.0 license (http://www.apache.org/
> licenses/GPL-compatibility.html)
Only in the same sense that GPL or LGPL (any version) is incompatible
with a
Dan Shearer wrote:
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:44:10AM +0200, Ondrej Sury wrote:
Florian Weimer has correctly pointed out that Oracle has decided to change
the BDB 6.0 license to AGPLv3 (
https://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/bdb/2013-June/56.html).
:
we (as the Debian project) need to take
Le 02/07/2013 16:35, Ondřej Surý a écrit :
> Thanks Dan for this comprehensive email.
>
> I'll take ITP bug for libmdb (#694757) under pkg-db umbrella, as it will
> affect Berkeley DB, so it makes sense to have it there.
>
> People are most welcome to join the team, as I am the only active person
On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 18:40:11 +0200 Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Paul Tagliamonte:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:44:10AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> >> Florian Weimer has correctly pointed out that Oracle has decided to change
> >> the
> >> BDB 6.0 license to AGPLv3 (https://oss.oracle.com/piperm
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 06:20:48PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> > I don't believe I have spread any FUD.
> >
> [...]
> > 2. AGPLv3 is incompatible with Apache 2.0 license (
> http://www.apache.org/
> > licenses/GPL-compatibility.html)
>
> On
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 06:58:34PM +0200, Nick Andrik wrote:
> Since AGPLv3 is really similar to GPLv3 but mostly oriented for
> webapplications, would it make sense to contact Oracle with the
> concerns raised in this thread and ask for clarification and possible
> consideration to change to licen
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 18:58:34 +0200, Nick Andrik wrote:
> Since AGPLv3 is really similar to GPLv3 but mostly oriented for
> webapplications, would it make sense to contact Oracle with the
> concerns raised in this thread and ask for clarification and possible
> consideration to change to licens
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Nick Andrik wrote:
> 2013/7/2 Russ Allbery :
> > I don't believe the AGPL was ever intended to be used for libraries.
> > Quite a bit of the license is very difficult to interpret as applied to a
> > library. (For example, does that mean that every application usi
On 2 July 2013 17:58, Nick Andrik wrote:
> 2013/7/2 Russ Allbery :
>> I don't believe the AGPL was ever intended to be used for libraries.
>> Quite a bit of the license is very difficult to interpret as applied to a
>> library. (For example, does that mean that every application using the
>> libr
2013/7/2 Russ Allbery :
> I don't believe the AGPL was ever intended to be used for libraries.
> Quite a bit of the license is very difficult to interpret as applied to a
> library. (For example, does that mean that every application using the
> library has to provide a URL to download the source
Ondřej Surý writes:
> Just to clarify – I am not in any way opposed to the hereditary
> properties of (A)GPL. The evil thing is the relicensing at the point
> where people depend on you, and not the license itself.
I don't believe the AGPL was ever intended to be used for libraries.
Quite a bit
* Paul Tagliamonte:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:44:10AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>> Florian Weimer has correctly pointed out that Oracle has decided to change
>> the
>> BDB 6.0 license to AGPLv3 (https://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/bdb/2013-June/
>> 56.html). This hasn't been reflected in rele
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Clint Adams wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 05:22:03PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>> > Also it would cultivate the debate here if you have presented your
>> arguments (e.g. explain why I might be mistaken) in
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 05:22:03PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> > 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
Joey Hess writes:
> Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the
> Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users
> interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version
> supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> An AGPL licenced libdb isn't particularly useful for us, though. It'd
> mean distributing a fair amount of software including exim, postfix,
> squid, webalizer, dovecot and many other servers under the AGPL, which
> would mean patching them so you could download the source
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 05:22:03PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> 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.
I am not a lawyer, though I work for lawyers. It wo
(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 so
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 AGPLv
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:44:10AM +0200, Ondrej Sury wrote:
> Florian Weimer has correctly pointed out that Oracle has decided to change
> the BDB 6.0 license to AGPLv3 (
> https://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/bdb/2013-June/56.html).
:
> we (as the Debian project) need to take a decision.
:
Thanks Dan for this comprehensive email.
I'll take ITP bug for libmdb (#694757) under pkg-db umbrella, as it will
affect Berkeley DB, so it makes sense to have it there.
People are most welcome to join the team, as I am the only active person in
the team.
O.
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Dan
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> I think we should just keep libdb5.3 until a suitable replacement shows
> up.
The OpenLDAP lightningdb might be a viable option: http://symas.com/mdb/
O.
--
Ondřej Surý
On Tue, 2013-07-02 at 09:44 +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Florian Weimer has correctly pointed out that Oracle has decided to
> change the BDB 6.0 license to AGPLv3
> (https://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/bdb/2013-June/56.html). This
> hasn't been reflected in release tarball (probably by mi
]] Paul Tagliamonte
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:44:10AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> > Florian Weimer has correctly pointed out that Oracle has decided to change
> > the
> > BDB 6.0 license to AGPLv3 (https://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/bdb/2013-June/
> > 56.html). This hasn't been reflected in
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
>
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:44:10AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> > Florian Weimer has correctly pointed out that Oracle has decided to
> change the
> > BDB 6.0 license to AGPLv3 (
> https://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/bdb/2013-June/
> > 56.
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 re
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:44:10AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> Florian Weimer has correctly pointed out that Oracle has decided to change the
> BDB 6.0 license to AGPLv3 (https://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/bdb/2013-June/
> 56.html). This hasn't been reflected in release tarball (probably by
> mis
Hi,
Florian Weimer has correctly pointed out that Oracle has decided to change
the BDB 6.0 license to AGPLv3 (
https://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/bdb/2013-June/56.html). This hasn't
been reflected in release tarball (probably by mistake), but since the
AGPLv3 is not very friendly to downstream p
84 matches
Mail list logo
