Kuhn: Berkeley DB 6.0 license change and Debian

Posted Jul 8, 2013 20:35 UTC (Mon) by jimparis (guest, #38647)
In reply to: Kuhn: Berkeley DB 6.0 license change and Debian by foom
Parent article: Kuhn: Berkeley DB 6.0 license change and Debian

I'm not sure why everyone's up-in-arms about this, yet nobody seemed terribly concerned when lots of GNU libraries were relicensed from GPLv2/LGPLv2 to GPLv3/LGPLv3.

It's the A.

The AGPLv3 is a big change from just about any other type of license, because it attaches provisions to use, rather than just distribution.

Kuhn: Berkeley DB 6.0 license change and Debian

Posted Jul 8, 2013 21:45 UTC (Mon) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link] (3 responses)

That's not true at all: AGPLv3 attaches provisions to copying, distribution, and modification, *not* use, just like other licenses.

Yes, there are more terms attached to modification than in the GPLv3, but it still covers the same activities.

Kuhn: Berkeley DB 6.0 license change and Debian

Posted Jul 8, 2013 22:22 UTC (Mon) by jimparis (guest, #38647) [Link] (2 responses)

> That's not true at all: AGPLv3 attaches provisions to copying, distribution, and modification, *not* use, just like other licenses.
>
> Yes, there are more terms attached to modification than in the GPLv3, but it still covers the same activities.

Are you just lawyering me on the definition of the term "use", or am I really just misunderstanding the AGPLv3? If I incorporate AGPLv3 Berkeley DB into my own private software and use it to publicly serve up GIFs of bouncing cows, doesn't the AGPLv3 require that I provide a download link for the source code?

Kuhn: Berkeley DB 6.0 license change and Debian

Posted Jul 9, 2013 2:27 UTC (Tue) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link] (1 responses)

I wasn't actually intentionally lawyering you -- I thought you had actually meant use in the sense of installing and running an unmodified copy on your machine. But, I now understand that you meant "modify" by "use", because of course, as developers, modification is a primary way we "use" software libraries. Basically, "use" is just a bad word to use, it's too ambiguous. :)

But, yes, I guess I was just actually just "lawyering" you on the definition of the term "use", and I think what you say is the case -- you are probably required to provide a download link for both BDB's source code and your dancing cow code.

Kuhn: Berkeley DB 6.0 license change and Debian

Posted Jul 9, 2013 8:23 UTC (Tue) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link]

I looked at the AGPL's use restriction and arrived at a question: If I use an AGPL'd library in my network-facing application that serves images but not text, do I have to deface all the images with a download link?