Thanks for your explanation. Gerardo
Il giorno ven 16 apr 2021 alle ore 20:09 Bastian Blank <wa...@debian.org> ha scritto: > > Hi Gerardo > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 10:30:08AM +0200, Gerardo Ballabio wrote: > > Bastian Blank wrote: > > > Berkeley DB was relicensed to AGPLv3 almost eight years ago. > > Sorry but I don't understand, why is that a problem? > > I believe the AGPL (you mean the GNU Affero General Public License, > > right?) is a free license. Is it not? > > Yes, the AGPLv3 is a free license. > > However the freeness is not the problem here. The problem is the AGPL, > it's extended source provisions, the incompatibility with the license of > existing software and also a bit "Oracle". > > The AGPL was created for network services. It requires to provide the > source to anyone accessing it via network. So this is tailored for the > services themselves, not arbitrary libraries deep within the dependency > chain. There where a lot of discussions about this problems at the > time.[1] > > So even if we would switch to a current version of Berkeley DB, we would > need to do the same work to make sure every software that uses it is in > compliance with the AGPL. AFAIK every distribution either stayed with > BDB 5.3 and often just removed it's use as much as possible or just > killed it alltogether. > > Regards, > Bastian > > [1]: https://lwn.net/Articles/557820/ > -- > If a man had a child who'd gone anti-social, killed perhaps, he'd still > tend to protect that child. > -- McCoy, "The Ultimate Computer", stardate 4731.3