On Sun, 2020-09-27 at 17:27 -0400, Scott Andrews via blfs-support wrote: > On 9/27/20 4:20 PM, Pierre Labastie via blfs-support wrote: > > On Sun, 2020-09-27 at 09:32 -0400, Scott Andrews via blfs-support > > wrote: > > > On 9/27/20 9:24 AM, Elias Rudberg via blfs-support wrote: > > > > > > *Affero* GPL is problematic. For example, in BLFS we have > > > > > > PHP > > > > > > linked > > > > > > [...] > > > > About the GNU Affero General Public License, this might be > > > > relevant: > > > > > > > > https://drewdevault.com/2020/07/27/Anti-AGPL-propaganda.html > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Elias > > > Now that stance I can agree with > > > > > I am not a lawyer, but not a conspiracy theorist either. What I see > > is > > that fedora and debian/ubuntu are at 5.3.28. There is certainly a > > reason, which is not founded only on what Google say. Those distros > > have lawyers. > > > > Now why did blfs include version 6.x at a time? The reason is that > > it > > was an error. When it was realized that it was an error, it was > > reverted to version 5.3.28. Those sorts of things happen. > > > > Pierre > > > It was version 7.5 to 8.4, that would be an extensive error covering > a > few YEARS.
Yes. Recently, in one of the package mailing lists I monitor, I've seen that somebody fixed a bug which had been there for more than 20 years... > > If you research the license you will find that it is basically GPL3. > In > fact it mentions that GPL3 applies several times. > > Debian/raspberry pi is at 5.1.29-9 to 5.3.28. BTW I have never been > a > fan of fedora, but I did use redhat 7.0 back in the day, not the > recent > enterprise version Major distros stay at version 5. We've been told there are license problems. They have lawyers. We don't. What do you want us to conclude? Note that I've read carefully all those licenses, because I develop two packages (jhalfs and blocaled). I've never been sure I was understanding anything. But just in case, I've removed some parts of jhalfs because they were GPL'd, while the other parts were under MIT license, and it seems it is not permissible to include GPL'd work into non GPL'd work (whether the license is more permissive or it is less permissive than GPL)... Pierre -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
