tech-pkg archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: py-bsddb3 (was Re: BAD Python compilation directives)

Jesus Cea <> writes:

> Thomas, I see this change 15 minutes ago
> <>:
> """
> Allow db6 and set up the environment correctly so this builds
> automatically against it.
> Users have to have accepted the db6 license already for installing it
> anyway.
> """
> That is not right.
> If you use db6 and you don't pay Oracle, your program *MUST* be AGPL3.
> The reason to require a license acknowledge is for the programmer to be
> aware of this imposition.
> Note also that if a program I wrote works uses db4 and you "upgrade" me
> under my feet to db6, suddenly my program is breaking Oracle licensing
> unless my code was AGPL3 licensed already.

Two nits (and IANAL, TINLA, etc.)

  There is no "must" in copyright law; there is only "may not".  But
  agreed that it amounts to close to the same thing.

  AGPL3 terms are only triggered by redistribution or making available
  over a network.

But other than that, you are 99% correct that this puts users in a bad

So far, pkgsrc has avoided making decisions about whether DEPENDing or
buildlinking with a package creates a derived work that has a different
license than the original terms.  I don't want to go down that path.

The real issue here is AGPL3 use aimed at relicensing, rather than AGPL3
as intended for web applications themselves.  I sent a note about
splitting the license tag.  This situation argues for that (and for
people to decline to use db6 or other libraries that are

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index