Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fedora Looking To Transition The RPM Database From Berkeley DB To SQLite

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fedora Looking To Transition The RPM Database From Berkeley DB To SQLite

    Phoronix: Fedora Looking To Transition The RPM Database From Berkeley DB To SQLite

    As a move ultimately for Red Hat Enterprise Linux as well, Red Hat developers working on Fedora are planning to transition the RPM database (RPMDB) away from the long-standing Berkeley DB to using SQLite...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...PMDB-To-SQLite

  • #2
    Cool! Hopefully DB can be done away with completely the n Fedora.

    Comment


    • #3
      Great. Never compromise on licensing issues \o/

      Another great move by Fedora is refocusing the QA resources on Default Workstation. I find the choice of wording to be almost wizard level.
      https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.ph...5&oldid=564126

      Comment


      • #4
        I wonder what was RedHat's beef with AGPL.

        Comment


        • #5
          At least Red Hat did not go "full IBM" on us and implement something like IBM DB2 or IBM Informix.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by bug77 View Post
            I wonder what was RedHat's beef with AGPL.
            The existing RPM code is under GPLv2, so I think they would need agreement from every prior contributor in the history of RPM to re-license it under AGPL - or anything else.

            SQLite is public domain, so you can stick it into a GPLv2 project.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by bug77 View Post
              I wonder what was RedHat's beef with AGPL.
              Or WTFPL.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by bug77 View Post
                I wonder what was RedHat's beef with AGPL.
                The general beef with AGPLv3 for something like BDB is the claim that it discriminates against a category of user (those that want to use the software/library in their non-open solution), as the linking exception does not apply (in simple terms, you can't link to (later versions of) BDB without open sourcing everything). AGPLv3 is typically used to ensure that only the developer themselves can decide how to monetize any use of their work (typically by providing a dual-use license for those that do not want to open source all their software), although even AGPLv3 has a cloud service loophole which the SSPL was intended to address (to ensure, again, that the developer could determine monetization). Whether every piece of software *should* be open source is an interesting discussion, but *requiring* all software to be open source is considered a step too far by many (at least Debian and RedHat) as it eliminates freedoms.
                Last edited by CommunityMember; 03-16-2020, 04:12 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by bug77 View Post
                  I wonder what was RedHat's beef with AGPL.
                  Berkley is somewhat Dead anyway, its license is AGPLv3+ there are APPS like APT an others that cannot use DB6.2 + , im sure Redhat lists those apps somewhere that cannot use the new BerkleyDB

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by CommunityMember View Post

                    The general beef with AGPLv3 for something like BDB is the claim that it discriminates against a category of user (those that want to use the software/library in their non-open solution), as the linking exception does not apply (in simple terms, you can't link to (later versions of) BDB without open sourcing everything). AGPLv3 is typically used to ensure that only the developer themselves can decide how to monetize any use of their work (typically by providing a dual-use license for those that do not want to open source all their software), although even AGPLv3 has a cloud service loophole which the SSPL was intended to address (to ensure, again, that the developer could determine monetization). Whether every piece of software *should* be open source is an interesting discussion, but *requiring* all software to be open source is considered a step too far by many (at least Debian and RedHat) as it eliminates freedoms.
                    I'm pretty sure you can't use GPLv2 code in closed solutions either, so that can't be it. (The Linux kernel is GPLv2, Nvidia isn't allowed to use some public symbols/constants in their driver.)

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X