On 04/11/2014 01:18 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
The BerkeleyDB, used between others by rpm [1], changed license between
versions 5.* and 6.* to AGPLv3+ from […]. As those two licenses are not
compatible, packages using the BerkeleyDB either has to change its license to
AGPLv3+ compatible, keep on
Il 24/04/2014 16:50, Kevin Fenzi ha scritto:
> Well, in the current plan (make libdb5 "compat" package and updating
> the libdb to v6), after the mass rebuild the packages would start
> using v6.
Yeah, which makes technical sense... but the concern is packagers who
aren't paying attention rebuil
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 6:24 AM, Jan Staněk wrote:
> Well, both GPLv3+ and AGPLv3+ have clause ([1], [2]) that allow code
> licensed under one of them link with code under the other one legally -
> only if you run the full product on a server and it interact with users
> trough network, you have t
Dne 24.4.2014 17:22, Jerry James napsal(a):
> I need some advice on how to handle this for XEmacs, which is a GPLv3+
> package.
Well, both GPLv3+ and AGPLv3+ have clause ([1], [2]) that allow code
licensed under one of them link with code under the other one legally -
only if you run the full pr
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> You'll have the option of moving to libdb5 , without a license change or
> need to convert data. That should be easiest, at least in the medium term
> while libdb5 is actively maintained.
Sure, but long term I still have the same problem,
2014-04-24 17:22 GMT+02:00 Jerry James :
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > Yeah, which makes technical sense... but the concern is packagers who
> > aren't paying attention rebuild for some other reason and are not on v6
> > when it's a licensing problem. ;(
>
> I need som
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Yeah, which makes technical sense... but the concern is packagers who
> aren't paying attention rebuild for some other reason and are not on v6
> when it's a licensing problem. ;(
I need some advice on how to handle this for XEmacs, which is a
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 09:31:43 +0200
Jan Staněk wrote:
> Well, in the current plan (make libdb5 "compat" package and updating
> the libdb to v6), after the mass rebuild the packages would start
> using v6.
Yeah, which makes technical sense... but the concern is packagers who
aren't paying attentio
Dne 23.4.2014 20:23, Miloslav Trmač napsal(a):
> Hello,
> 2014-04-11 13:18 GMT+02:00 Jaroslav Reznik :
>
>> = Proposed System Wide Change: BerkeleyDB 6 =
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BerkeleyDB_6
>>
>
> At the FESCo meeting, we were unclear what happens to packages that don't
> get u
Hello,
2014-04-11 13:18 GMT+02:00 Jaroslav Reznik :
> = Proposed System Wide Change: BerkeleyDB 6 =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BerkeleyDB_6
>
At the FESCo meeting, we were unclear what happens to packages that don't
get updated; will they sty at v5, or will they (immediately, or aft
Dne 16.4.2014 15:44, Petr Pisar napsal(a):
> On 2014-04-11, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>> = Proposed System Wide Change: BerkeleyDB 6 =
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BerkeleyDB_6
> [...]
>> The BerkeleyDB, used between others by rpm [1], changed license between
>> versions 5.* and 6.* to
On 2014-04-11, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>= Proposed System Wide Change: BerkeleyDB 6 =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BerkeleyDB_6
[...]
> The BerkeleyDB, used between others by rpm [1], changed license between
> versions 5.* and 6.* to AGPLv3+ from GPLv2+. As those two licenses are not
On 04/15/2014 03:40 PM, Jan Staněk wrote:
Dne 11.4.2014 16:59, Bill Nottingham napsal(a):
Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) said:
== Scope ==
* Proposal owners: Create new set of packages and introduce proper versioning
in order to not confuse the dynamic linker.
Is this symbol versioning
Dne 11.4.2014 16:59, Bill Nottingham napsal(a):
> Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) said:
>> == Scope ==
>> * Proposal owners: Create new set of packages and introduce proper
>> versioning
>> in order to not confuse the dynamic linker.
>
> Is this symbol versioning intended to be upstream?
Dne 11.4.2014 14:57, Chris Adams napsal(a):
> Once upon a time, Jaroslav Reznik said:
>> Add BerkeleyDB v. 6, which changed license from previous releases (GPLv2+ to
>> AGPLv3+), to Fedora while keeping the older version for packages which
>> cannot
>> use BerkeleyDB with the new license.
>
>
Dne 11.4.2014 15:55, Florian Weimer napsal(a):
> On 04/11/2014 01:18 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>> = Proposed System Wide Change: BerkeleyDB 6 =
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BerkeleyDB_6
>>
>> Change owner(s): Jan Staněk
>>
>> Add BerkeleyDB v. 6, which changed license from previous r
Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) said:
> == Scope ==
> * Proposal owners: Create new set of packages and introduce proper versioning
> in order to not confuse the dynamic linker.
Is this symbol versioning intended to be upstream?
Bill
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
htt
On 04/11/2014 01:18 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
= Proposed System Wide Change: BerkeleyDB 6 =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BerkeleyDB_6
Change owner(s): Jan Staněk
Add BerkeleyDB v. 6, which changed license from previous releases (GPLv2+ to
AGPLv3+), to Fedora while keeping the older
Once upon a time, Jaroslav Reznik said:
> Add BerkeleyDB v. 6, which changed license from previous releases (GPLv2+ to
> AGPLv3+), to Fedora while keeping the older version for packages which cannot
> use BerkeleyDB with the new license.
Have the packages that cannot use libdb-6 because of the
19 matches
Mail list logo
