Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
However, this *might* mean issues for downstream participants who package apr-util; that in and of itself, might cause us to remove GDBM support, but it's not because of any licensing issues. If we're not comfortable allowing third-parties to create GPLd code out of AL v2.0 code, then, yes, that's an issue and the code should be removed. However, that has not yet seemed to be our official position.
Perhaps the default build should disable any features which could make the licensing of the generated "product" different than the licensing of the source code, and if the user is happy otherwise then they can enable such features?
What I have done thus far where this has been a potential issue is to add
--without-gdbm --without-berkeley-db
to the configure invocation.
