On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Michael Banck <mba...@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi, > > On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 02:48:18PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > If the relicensing is real and not another misconfiguration of the > > build/release system (like with MySQL docs), this sounds like a > > shakedown for proprietary users of Berkeley DB. GPLv2-licensed users > > are collateral damage. > > People have pointed out upthread that Oracle does not appear to be the > sole copyright holder of BerkelyDB. So unless they had copyright > assignments or similar on file, maybe a viable route would be to contact > those additional copyright holders and suggest they complain to Oracle > in order to get their relicensing reversed. > > This should probably be done in coordination with the wider Free > Software community. > >From my understanding, the other copyright holders' opinion doesn't really matter – even if they relicense just the parts they own the whole work will be distributed under stricter license (e.g. AGPLv3). But feel free to correct me if I am wrong. O. -- Ondřej Surý <ond...@sury.org>
