On 02-10-2014 14:30, Armin K. wrote:
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
}}}
I got it built, installed and working, with an sed, to be run between
autoconf and configure:
sed -i '/6.0.20/ a\\t__db_version_compat' configure &&
Is this OK, or would you think better to use the patch? In this case,
would you point to or attach the patch, please?
Starting with BDB6, it got relicensed to the GNU AGPL. 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.
For info on AGPL, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License
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.
Igor proposed LMDB.
I am in position to update (just need to rerun with -j1 for SBU) without
it and include some note or warning about it and problems with
redistribution, but would like somebody else to write this for me.
I couls update and leave a blanck warning perhaps with "there are
license problems", and after someone could place a good one.
Would this be OK?
--
[]s,
Fernando
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
