On 10/02/2014 09:47 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Armin K. wrote:
>> 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 opinion before
>> acting on this.
>
> A quick check shows:
>
> general/prog/ruby.xml: <xref linkend="db"/>,
> general/prog/python3.xml: <xref linkend="db"/>,
> general/prog/php.xml: <xref linkend="db"/>,
> general/prog/subversion.xml: <xref linkend="db"/>,
> general/prog/python2.xml: <xref linkend="db"/>,
> general/genlib/apr-util.xml: <xref linkend="db"/>,
> general/sysutils/redland.xml: <xref linkend="db"/>,
> networking/mailnews/mutt.xml: <xref linkend="db"/> or
> postlfs/security/linux-pam.xml: <xref linkend="db"/>,
> postlfs/security/cyrus-sasl.xml: <xref linkend="db"/>
> server/major/apache.xml: <xref linkend="db"/>,
> server/major/bind.xml: <xref linkend="db"/>,
> server/other/openldap.xml: <xref linkend="db"/> (only if building servr)
> server/mail/exim.xml: <xref linkend="db"/> or
> server/mail/postfix.xml: <xref linkend="db"/>
>
> I didn't check for required/recommended/optional or if there were
> alternatives.
>
> For info on AGPL, see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License
>
> -- Bruce
> I already knew this. What I am still not sure of is will reverting of the patch that caused OpenLDAP configure script to start panicking if BDB > 6 was found do any harm as the OpenLDAP and GNU AGPL licenses are incompatible with each other. From my initial understanding of the license, you can't redistribute binary packages if the licenses are incompatible, but it's still unclear to me if you can use it for your own purposes like done in BLFS. And OpenLDAP is not one of the packages that you can simply use an alternative for BDB without breaking some setups. I did notice that there's a switch to disable it entirely. -- 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
