On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 10:21 +0100, Jindrich Novy wrote: > 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? The license is not set to GPL, because it is not GPL. Theoretically you could take the whole thing and relicense it under GPL as the current license allows that but this is not what you do with the License tag in RPM package. > 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. You simply won't do any license changes. You should just correctly mark the license of the package in the .spec file. Either you can mark it as Berkeley DB license or put there something like Distributable (which many other packages do now). But please don't mark it incorrectly as BSD or GPL which it simply isn't. > 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. You just need to notify me or a future PAM maintainer when you want to upgrade db4 to a new major release (not a minor upgrade) in advance. -- Tomas Mraz No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back. Turkish proverb -- 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
