apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Trawick <traw...@attglobal.net>
Subject Re: gdbm licence issue
Date Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:21:45 GMT
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Tuesday, February 24, 2004 12:37 PM -0500 Jeff Trawick 
> <trawick@attglobal.net> wrote:
> 
>> Perhaps the default build should disable any features which could make 
>> the
>> licensing of the generated "product" different than the licensing of the
>> source code, and if the user is happy otherwise then they can enable such
>> features?
>>
>> What I have done thus far where this has been a potential issue is to add
>>
>> --without-gdbm --without-berkeley-db
>>
>> to the configure invocation.
> 
> 
> That'd be fair, I think.  BTW, what's the issue with BDB's license?  -- 
> justin

Actually there were other reasons that Berkeley db support was disabled, so 
that was a bad example :(

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that there are no requirements placed on you by 
merely using the Berkeley db libraries already installed on the end-user's 
system.  Bundling Berkeley db support in a product would be a completely 
different issue however, and would require either licensing fees to be paid or 
source code of the product to be published.  But none of this issue with 
Berkeley db seems to be apr's problem.


Mime
View raw message