On 04/11/2014 01:18 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
The BerkeleyDB, used between others by rpm [1], changed license between
versions 5.* and 6.* to AGPLv3+ from […]. As those two licenses are not
compatible, packages using the BerkeleyDB either has to change its license to
AGPLv3+ compatible, keep
Il 24/04/2014 16:50, Kevin Fenzi ha scritto:
Well, in the current plan (make libdb5 compat package and updating
the libdb to v6), after the mass rebuild the packages would start
using v6.
Yeah, which makes technical sense... but the concern is packagers who
aren't paying attention rebuild
Dne 24.4.2014 17:22, Jerry James napsal(a):
snap
I need some advice on how to handle this for XEmacs, which is a GPLv3+
package.
snap
Well, both GPLv3+ and AGPLv3+ have clause ([1], [2]) that allow code
licensed under one of them link with code under the other one legally -
only if you run the
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 6:24 AM, Jan Staněk jsta...@redhat.com wrote:
Well, both GPLv3+ and AGPLv3+ have clause ([1], [2]) that allow code
licensed under one of them link with code under the other one legally -
only if you run the full product on a server and it interact with users
trough
Dne 23.4.2014 20:23, Miloslav Trmač napsal(a):
Hello,
2014-04-11 13:18 GMT+02:00 Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com:
= Proposed System Wide Change: BerkeleyDB 6 =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BerkeleyDB_6
At the FESCo meeting, we were unclear what happens to packages that don't
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 09:31:43 +0200
Jan Staněk jsta...@redhat.com wrote:
Well, in the current plan (make libdb5 compat package and updating
the libdb to v6), after the mass rebuild the packages would start
using v6.
Yeah, which makes technical sense... but the concern is packagers who
aren't
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
Yeah, which makes technical sense... but the concern is packagers who
aren't paying attention rebuild for some other reason and are not on v6
when it's a licensing problem. ;(
I need some advice on how to handle this for
2014-04-24 17:22 GMT+02:00 Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
Yeah, which makes technical sense... but the concern is packagers who
aren't paying attention rebuild for some other reason and are not on v6
when it's a
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Miloslav Trmač m...@volny.cz wrote:
You'll have the option of moving to libdb5 , without a license change or
need to convert data. That should be easiest, at least in the medium term
while libdb5 is actively maintained.
Sure, but long term I still have the
Dne 16.4.2014 15:44, Petr Pisar napsal(a):
On 2014-04-11, Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com wrote:
= Proposed System Wide Change: BerkeleyDB 6 =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BerkeleyDB_6
[...]
The BerkeleyDB, used between others by rpm [1], changed license between
versions 5.*
Hello,
2014-04-11 13:18 GMT+02:00 Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com:
= Proposed System Wide Change: BerkeleyDB 6 =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BerkeleyDB_6
At the FESCo meeting, we were unclear what happens to packages that don't
get updated; will they sty at v5, or will they
On 2014-04-11, Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com wrote:
= Proposed System Wide Change: BerkeleyDB 6 =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BerkeleyDB_6
[...]
The BerkeleyDB, used between others by rpm [1], changed license between
versions 5.* and 6.* to AGPLv3+ from GPLv2+. As those two
Dne 11.4.2014 15:55, Florian Weimer napsal(a):
On 04/11/2014 01:18 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
= Proposed System Wide Change: BerkeleyDB 6 =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BerkeleyDB_6
Change owner(s): Jan Staněk jsta...@redhat.com
Add BerkeleyDB v. 6, which changed license from
Dne 11.4.2014 14:57, Chris Adams napsal(a):
Once upon a time, Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com said:
Add BerkeleyDB v. 6, which changed license from previous releases (GPLv2+ to
AGPLv3+), to Fedora while keeping the older version for packages which
cannot
use BerkeleyDB with the new
Dne 11.4.2014 16:59, Bill Nottingham napsal(a):
Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) said:
== Scope ==
* Proposal owners: Create new set of packages and introduce proper
versioning
in order to not confuse the dynamic linker.
Is this symbol versioning intended to be upstream?
Ideally,
On 04/15/2014 03:40 PM, Jan Staněk wrote:
Dne 11.4.2014 16:59, Bill Nottingham napsal(a):
Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) said:
== Scope ==
* Proposal owners: Create new set of packages and introduce proper versioning
in order to not confuse the dynamic linker.
Is this symbol versioning
= Proposed System Wide Change: BerkeleyDB 6 =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BerkeleyDB_6
Change owner(s): Jan Staněk jsta...@redhat.com
Add BerkeleyDB v. 6, which changed license from previous releases (GPLv2+ to
AGPLv3+), to Fedora while keeping the older version for packages which
Once upon a time, Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com said:
Add BerkeleyDB v. 6, which changed license from previous releases (GPLv2+ to
AGPLv3+), to Fedora while keeping the older version for packages which cannot
use BerkeleyDB with the new license.
Have the packages that cannot use
On 04/11/2014 01:18 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
= Proposed System Wide Change: BerkeleyDB 6 =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BerkeleyDB_6
Change owner(s): Jan Staněk jsta...@redhat.com
Add BerkeleyDB v. 6, which changed license from previous releases (GPLv2+ to
AGPLv3+), to Fedora while
Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) said:
== Scope ==
* Proposal owners: Create new set of packages and introduce proper versioning
in order to not confuse the dynamic linker.
Is this symbol versioning intended to be upstream?
Bill
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
20 matches
Mail list logo
