On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Michael Banck <mba...@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi, > > On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 06:39:30AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Michael Banck <mba...@debian.org> > wrote: > > > 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. > > That would only work if the Sleepycat license and the AGPLv3 are > compatible I guess, is that the case? Otherwise, I would assume the > result not to be distributable. As far as I understand it – there are some parts in Berkeley DB source code which is just BSD licensed (and the copyright holders are those mentioned earlier)[1], then there are parts which were under SleepyCat license and presumably the copyright holder for those parts is Oracle – and those were relicensed to AGPLv3. (There are also mixed files[3].) So, the AGPLv3 just needs to be compatible with 3-clause BSD license, which is the case. 1. f.e. src/clib/atoi.c 2. f.e. src/clib/bsearch.c 3. f.e. src/db/db.c O. -- Ondřej Surý <ond...@sury.org>
