On 10/02/2014 08:46 AM, BLFS Trac wrote:
> #5608: openldap-2.4.40
>
> {{{
> conftest.c:150:2: error: #error "BerkeleyDB 6.0.20+ license is
> incompatible with LDAP"
> #error "BerkeleyDB 6.0.20+ license is incompatible with LDAP"
>
> configure: error: BerkeleyDB version incompatible with BDB/HDB backends
> }}}
> The problems with BDB6 hit a lot of people. That's why many distros are trying to move away from BDB or are still shipping BDB5 where moving away is not possible. Starting with BDB6, it got relicensed to the GNU AGPL license, which is incompatible with GPL and alike licenses. That made anything linked against BDB that has a AGPL incompatible license unredistributable. However, we don't distribute anything linked to it. We just link to the sources and an end user would simply install them - but then couldn't redistribute built binaries. For this issue, I have found the offending commit in OpenLDAP git repo and reverted it, but I am not sure if it is a good idea to include in BLFS. I am not really into software licensing, so I can't speak how correct I am. That's why I'm writing here, to read everybody's oppinion before acting on this. Cheers. -- Note: My last name is not Krejzi.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
