Tricky issue...
I'd prefer to let the user decide whether to include GDBM or not. Because when you're writing an OpenSource application under GPL you'd have no trouble with including GDBM. Hence the configure output could give an informational message like "!!! You're now also working under GPL !!!" when your're building apr-util with gdbm enabled.
By the way: is "supporting" an interface same as "using" that interface? (thus, is supporting GPL'ed software same as using/incorporating that?)
Have a look at MySQL: there's a clause that applications with MySQL
support only need to be under GPL when they rely on MySQL; any application capable using another db system (e.g. postgresql)
doesn't need to be under GPL. (if I understood that correctly :-)
Klaus
Joe Orton schrieb: Bringing this up in the appropriate forum. IANAL, but...
gdbm is licensed under the GNU GPL. apr_dbm_gdbm.c uses the GDBM interface, hence is a work based on GDBM, hence all of apr-util must be redistributed only under the terms of the GPL.
So I propose to remove apr_dbm_gdbm.c (and associated autofoo) from apr-util. Objections?
apr-util has one other surprising licensing gotcha that I'm aware of: the Berkeley DB licence requires you to provide source to your application if you redistribute BDB with your app, but I don't know where the ASF stands on that.
joe
