On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 02:28:45PM -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > --On Monday, March 23, 2015 5:21 PM -0500 Bruce Dubbs > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >I appreciate your comment. I do hope you understand that we don't > >distribute the built software. The users build it. I took a look at the > >Oracle license and it does not appear to me to be a violation of their > >license to just use it, only to distribute binaries to third parties. > > > >Right now we have 19 packages in BLFS that use BDB. We can't just > >replace BDB with LMDB without a huge effort.
LMDB also does not have any releases so far, only a git tree. http://symas.com/mdb/ - apparently postfix supports it, and there are patches for e.g. Cyrus-SASL, but most BLFS packages are not mentioned. > > > >Your concern is the first expressed to us. > > > >I'll go ahead an add a note about LMDB in the book. > > This concern is well documented and is why projects across the board are > abandoning using newer versions of BDB. > > To be clear, your instructions to apply that patch put your users in legal > jeopardy. Please remove all such references. > Strong words. Anybody who has registered for the wiki can update the instructions. Some of what is there is good, other comments are old or maybe even wrong. Many things are well documented, but not necessarily common knowledge. We do not usually need to get involved in license policing. > Please see: > > <http://www.infoworld.com/article/2611450/open-source-software/oracle-switches-berkeley-db-license.html> > That says that any web application needs to be compliant with the AGPL. So, "secret sauce" is no longer secret - unless you purchase a license from Oracle. > and > > <http://lwn.net/Articles/557820/> > But that includes: Russ Allbery also commented that AGPL was not written for libraries, and as a result has terms that are difficult to interpret for non-web-applications. In other words, it is unclear how it applies. I do see that fedora and debian are both using v5 - fedora's git tree is at http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/libdb.git/tree/ Perhaps we should put a NOTE in the berkeleydb page, pointing out that this verion is licensed under the Affero GPL v3 which might have implications for those who run programs on a server and let other users communicate with it there - https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html Or just point to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License For openldap, most of the docs (e.g. in their wiki) that google found talk about using berkeleydb (without, AFAICS, mentioning that it needs to be an old version, so I really don't see the problem ? Wikipedia thinks you are an active openldap contributor, so please spell out in detail what the problem would be if I were to link an openldap server to db v6. Note that I have no interest in building an openldap server, to me the openldap client is just another of those awkward "required to be able to build something else, even if not used" packages. ĸen -- Nanny Ogg usually went to bed early. After all, she was an old lady. Sometimes she went to bed as early as 6 a.m. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
