On 09/13/13 09:12, Honza Horak wrote:
I haven't found any topic about this change on Oracle's Berkeley DB
discussion platform, so I created one and it surprisingly isn't without
reply as I wrongly supposed:
https://forums.oracle.com/message/1118
[...]
I don't give myself much hope, but
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
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?
If so, I
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),
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
On 19/07/13 15:29, Ondřej Surý wrote:
would FOSS Exception similar to
http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/foss-exception/ fix the
relicensing problem?
If it does what the summary says (permits distribution of certain MySQL
Client Libraries with a developer’s FOSS applications licensed
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.
The
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
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 mba...@debian.org 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
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Michael Banck mba...@debian.org 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 mba...@debian.org
wrote:
People have pointed out upthread that Oracle does not appear to be the
sole
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 mba...@debian.org 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
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?
AFAIK
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 for
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
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn bk...@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
2013/7/4 Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org:
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn bk...@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
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 Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn bk...@ebb.org 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
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 Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Michael Banck mba...@debian.org 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
Bradley,
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn bk...@ebb.org 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
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
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
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
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org 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/
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
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
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.
(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
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
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Clint Adams cl...@debian.org 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
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Clint Adams cl...@debian.org 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
* 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 release
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Richard Fontana rfont...@redhat.com 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/
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
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 any
36 matches
Mail list logo
