Berkeley DB relicensed to AGPLv3
rra at stanford.edu
Wed Jul 3 18:06:06 UTC 2013
Julien ÉLIE <julien at trigofacile.com> writes:
>> However, read strictly, it could imply that anyone running a version of
>> INN linked with Berkeley DB who has modified the source in some way is
>> required to present as part of the NNTP banner or in some similar way a
>> URL to the source code. (Possibly including the source for Berkeley
>> DB? It's really not clear.)
> A sentence could be added to the answer for the HELP command (instead of
> the NNTP banner). It would be less intrusive.
True, but it's not clear that actually satisfies the requirement. The
license says that the source must be offered to all users who interact
with the program. The banner would clearly qualify, since it's always
sent, but putting something in HELP or LIST MOTD is only sent to users who
run those commands (which is almost none of them). So it comes down to a
technical legal question of whether putting the offer in the output of an
optional command still counts as "offering," or if the source is then only
"offered" to users who run that command.
> Just a question: if the end user removes help.innd and help.nnrpd,
> would it cause a problem? Should the message when INN is linked with
> Berkeley DB be more tied to the code? (that is to say unremovable
> unless INN is rebuilt)
I think it's fine if the user is just made aware of this, since it's the
person running INN who would, in theory, be in violation of the license,
and for most practical purposes it's probably not going to matter. ISC
clearly isn't going to sue them over this, so it would have to involve
Oracle suing them somehow over not complying with the license, which is
really quite a stretch.
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Please send questions to the list rather than mailing me directly.
<http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/questions.html> explains why.
More information about the inn-workers