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. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130704094441.gj27...@nighthawk.chemicalconnection.dyndns.org
