tech-pkg archive

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

Re: distinguishing between actual AGPL3 vs proprietary relicensing?

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:42:10PM +0100, Jesus Cea wrote:
> I don't have an opinion about pkgsrc policy but there is a difference
> between an AGLP3 program and an AGLP3 library. In the former case, the
> program is the final product. You want improvements to be public. In the
> other case, the library "contaminates" whatever code uses it, even
> indirectly. AGPL3 is inadequate for libraries unless something fishy is
> going on.
> The case is similar to the distinction between GPL3 and LGPL3, but far
> worse because the remote service clause.

Given the wording of the license, I'm not too sure that the distinction
between program and library works anymore. Consider Ghostscript.
Personally, I don't provide a web service using AGPL3 Ghostscript in any
way without first consulting a lawyer. Of course, it is questionable
whether the AGPL3 is enforcable in my jurisdiction, but that's a huge
legal mine field.

> I have spend hours and hours with Oracle during years about this.
> Funnily bsddb3 has received an exception from Oracle (bsddb3 is not
> AGPL3) because they use it and because they want others to use it. I
> like Berkeley DB a lot, it is the best thing available, so in my new
> programs I workaround the license segregating the database to another
> process sharing memory for communication with the main program. Go figure.

I've seen few reasons in recent years to go with BDB compared to Sqlite,
so I'm certainly not very attached to this situation :)


Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index