Hi, On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:29:36PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Michael Banck <mba...@debian.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 06:39:30AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > > > >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
Ah, the fact those other copyrights are under the BSD wasn't clear to me, now it makes much more sense. Thanks, 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/20130704104849.gk27...@nighthawk.chemicalconnection.dyndns.org
