Berkeley DB relicensed to AGPLv3

[Miles Fidelman]

actually, just the opposite:

 From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html
"The GNU Affero General Public License is a modified version of the 
ordinary GNU GPL version 3. It has one added requirement: if you run the 
program on a server and let other users communicate with it there, your 
server must also allow them to download the source code corresponding to 
the program that it's running. If what's running there is your modified 
version of the program, the server's users must get the source code as 
you modified it."

Also, seems to be compatible with the ISC license that INN is released 
under:
from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

    This license is sometimes also known as the OpenBSD License. It is a
    lax, permissive free software license, and compatible with the GNU GPL.

    This license does have an unfortunate wording choice: it provides
    recipients with "Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute
    this software…" This is roughly the same language from the license
    of Pine that the University of Washington later claimed prohibited
    people from distributing modified versions of the software.

    ISC has told us they do not share the University of Washington's
    interpretation, and we have every reason to believe them. Thus,
    there's no reason to avoid software released under this license.
    However, to help make sure this language cannot cause any trouble in
    the future, we encourage developers to choose a different license
    for their own works. The Expat License
    <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Expat> and FreeBSD
    License <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#FreeBSD> are
    similarly permissive and brief.


Karl Oman wrote:
> good :
> My guess is it's more designed for interactive programs running on the 
> desktop, not for daemons.
>
>
> 2013/7/4 Paul Walker <paul at blacksun.org.uk <mailto:paul at blacksun.org.uk>>
>
>     On 3 Jul 2013, at 19:06, Russ Allbery <rra at stanford.edu
>     <mailto:rra at stanford.edu>> wrote:
>
>     > True, but it's not clear that actually satisfies the
>     requirement. Â The
>     > license says that the source must be offered to all users who
>     interact
>     > with the program. Â The banner would clearly qualify, since it's
>     always
>
>     I'd say it's not clear this actually applies to INN at all anyway,
>     really. Users don't (usually!) interact with INN directly - they
>     use other software, Â slrn, other news transit stuff (suck), etc.
>     Even if you put a message in the MOTD/help status, unless slrn or
>     similar displays it the end-user still won't see it.
>
>     My guess is it's more designed for interactive programs running on
>     the desktop, not for daemons.
>
>     Paul
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     inn-workers mailing list
>     inn-workers at lists.isc.org <mailto:inn-workers at lists.isc.org>
>     https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/inn-workers
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> inn-workers mailing list
> inn-workers at lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/inn-workers


-- 
Miles Fidelman, Principal
Protocol Technologies Group, LLC
617-538-9249 - mfidelman at protocoltechnologiesgroup.com