Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2023 15:16:22 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: apache@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 269857] devel/apr1: update to 1.7.3 Message-ID: <bug-269857-16115-v4QlSOFm8c@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-269857-16115@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-269857-16115@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D269857 --- Comment #14 from John Hein <jcfyecrayz@liamekaens.com> --- (In reply to Enji Cooper from comment #9) > Does it make sense to mark this AGPL if the library is linked dynamically= ? IANAL and I'm not sure about static linking, but I thought dynamic linkin= g only affected the resulting program once the code (as a whole) was run? Whether devel/apr1 is considered a 'derivative work' of berkeley db is less= of a technical question - static vs dynamic linking is not an important distinction here. It's a more of a legal question. FSF seems to want link= ing with (and presumably using) a library to indicate a derivative work: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL Whether a court agrees with that FSF assertion would likely depend on the c= ase. The fact that FSF has always asserted that position for GPL openly in publ= ic may be part of the evidence that COULD be used in a court case. Until Orac= le states that linking and using their AGPLv3-covered BDB library without modification can be treated as not a derivative work (or a court weighs in = on it), it is probably best to follow the FSF published guidelines. It could also be that Oracle may state that certain clauses of the license = do not apply (like publishing source code if distributing the derived work). = It might be easier to just pick a different license than to publish exceptions= to their license of choice - and they have not selected a different license. = So I assume they picked AGPLv3 as the license that best matches their licensing desires. For devel/apr1, I might be inclined to turn off BDB as a default for apr1 n= ow that the default is to use the AGPLv3, but I have not surveyed all uses of = apr in the ports tree to see what would be affected by that change. But either way, it's best to mark it as affected by AGPLv3 so that unsuspecting users = are not blind-sided by possible license violations. So answering your question(s) directly - yes, I believe it makes sense to m= ark this as AGPL if using the AGPL licensed bdb library (regardless of the meth= od with which the library is pulled into apr). --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-269857-16115-v4QlSOFm8c>