apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Klaus Keppler <klaus.kepp...@informatik.stud.uni-erlangen.de>
Subject Re: gdbm licence issue
Date Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:21:28 GMT
Tricky issue...

I'd prefer to let the user decide whether to include GDBM or not.
Because when you're writing an OpenSource application under GPL
you'd have no trouble with including GDBM. Hence the configure output
could give an informational message like
"!!! You're now also working under GPL !!!" when your're building
apr-util with gdbm enabled.

By the way: is "supporting" an interface same as "using" that interface?
(thus, is supporting GPL'ed software same as using/incorporating that?)

Have a look at MySQL: there's a clause that applications with MySQL
support only need to be under GPL when they rely on MySQL; any 
application capable using another db system (e.g. postgresql)
doesn't need to be under GPL. (if I understood that correctly :-)


> Joe Orton schrieb:
> Bringing this up in the appropriate forum.  IANAL, but...
> gdbm is licensed under the GNU GPL.  apr_dbm_gdbm.c uses the GDBM
> interface, hence is a work based on GDBM, hence all of apr-util must be
> redistributed only under the terms of the GPL.
> So I propose to remove apr_dbm_gdbm.c (and associated autofoo) from
> apr-util.  Objections?
> apr-util has one other surprising licensing gotcha that I'm aware of:
> the Berkeley DB licence requires you to provide source to your
> application if you redistribute BDB with your app, but I don't know
> where the ASF stands on that.
> joe

View raw message