On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 09:37 +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote: > On Sat, 2006-11-11 at 09:39 +0100, Jindrich Novy wrote: > > On Sat, 2006-11-11 at 08:17 +0000, Joe Orton wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 07:43:35AM +0100, Jindrich Novy wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 22:20 +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote: > > > > > I've also noticed that License tag in spec contains GPL for the db4 > > > > > which doesn't seem correct to me. Jindrich could you fix that as well? > > > > > > > > Thanks for noticing this. I'll switch the license to BSDish in the next > > > > build. > > > > > > The BDB license is a copyleft-ish license, it's not really BSDish. > > > > The license for compat-db is defined as BSDish in the compat-db.spec, so > > I assume the same for the db4. The GPL as a license for db4 was probably > > set in the spec file by mistake at least since RHL-7.2 as far as I can > > see from CVS. > > > > I had a look into the LICENSE file for both compat-db and db4 and they > > both seem to have BSD styled licenses: > No, this license in not BSDish because it prevents you from closing the > source of your modification -> it is copyleft. Note there are 3 licenses > which apply together - 2 BSD licenses (California University and Harvard > University) and 1 Copyleft > > Note this paragraph of the Oracle (previously Sleepycat) part of the > license: > * 3. Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on > * how to obtain complete source code for the DB software and any > * accompanying software that uses the DB software. The source code > * must either be included in the distribution or be available for no > * more than the cost of distribution plus a nominal fee, and must be > * freely redistributable under reasonable conditions. For an > * executable file, complete source code means the source code for all > * modules it contains. It does not include source code for modules or > * files that typically accompany the major components of the operating > * system on which the executable file runs. > > This is compatible with GPL as it doesn't impose additional > restrictions. > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses Ok, so what is wrong when the db4 license is set to GPL? I'm not a lawier so we would better contact legal department before we do any license changes. I'm not going to change anything until I receive their clarification. My first question was related to the pam conflict, what seems to be more important right now. I'm also not a pam expert, so what I want to know is whether I need to bother you every time I need to update db4 in the future or not. Some clarification would really help here. Thanks, Jindrich -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
