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

  • #11
    Originally posted by bug77 View Post
    I'm pretty sure you can't use GPLv2 code in closed solutions either
    You can link to LGPL code (glibc, etc.) from closed solutions.

    The other problem is that if Debian/RedHat upgraded the library from v5 to v6 with the AGPLv3 license, suddenly software that happened to link to BDB would have an obligation they never had before to publish all their source code (compelled speech, and perhaps the equivalent of a submarine patent, are things most people agree are bad things). One is free to conjecture why Oracle (the current owner of BDB) chose AGPLv3 for BDB.
    Last edited by CommunityMember; 03-16-2020, 06:30 PM.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by CommunityMember View Post
      You can link to LGPL code (glibc, etc.) from closed solutions.
      Yes, but apparently earlier BDB versions weren't LGPL, they were GPLv2. So linking can't be the issue stopping RedHat from updating.

      Originally posted by CommunityMember View Post
      The other problem is that if Debian/RedHat upgraded the library from v5 to v6 with the AGPLv3 license, suddenly software that happened to link to BDB would have an obligation they never had before to publish all their source code (compelled speech, and perhaps the equivalent of a submarine patent, are things most people agree are bad things). One is free to conjecture why Oracle (the current owner of BDB) chose AGPLv3 for BDB.
      Again, linking is not the issue. BDB is an embedded DB. You don't link to that, you include it in your redistributable.

      I mean, it's clearly a licensing issue at play here, I just don't know what it is. The other possibility being the issue is not the license, it's technical and it just happened to surface around the time the license was changed.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by Mario Junior View Post

        Or WTFPL.

        The BSD guy should be poor looser, because he can't compete.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by bug77 View Post

          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.)
          That's correct. The problem with the Berkeley DB license change (from GPL to AGPL) is that it was driven by Oracle as a way to generate more revenue after the acquisition but it introduces licensing incompatibility for the users like RPM. RPM is under GPLv2 and this is AGPLv3 incompatible. To comply with the license, one would have to relicense RPM as well as its dependencies to be AGPLv3 or later. Red Hat doesn't use any copyright license agreement with RPM and RPM has hundreds of contributors and a long history. It would be a huge undertaking to do this. It is just much easier to switch the database backend instead

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by bug77 View Post
            Yes, but apparently earlier BDB versions weren't LGPL, they were GPLv2.
            No, it was the sleepycat license, which is (mostly) BSD (with an additional redistribution clause).

            Comment


            • #16
              https://hhorak.fedorapeople.org/libdb6issues
              https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main
              https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973056
              Last edited by Anvil; 03-16-2020, 07:21 PM.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by CommunityMember View Post
                No, it was the sleepycat license, which is (mostly) BSD (with an additional redistribution clause).
                6.0.19 downwards was sleepycat license , 6.0.20 was relicense to agplv3

                Comment


                • #18
                  Typo:

                  Originally posted by phoronix View Post
                  In place of Berkely DB,

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Are they now going to do some sort of cross-linked analysis of their package db or what? Or why the hell they needed sql for??

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by mos87 View Post
                      Are they now going to do some sort of cross-linked analysis of their package db or what? Or why the hell they needed sql for??
                      https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.ph...s/Sqlite_Rpmdb
                      https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.ph...anges/RPM-4.16

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X