db4 is now updated to 4.5.20 and compat-db to 4.3.29

[Jindrich Novy]

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?

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.

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.

Thanks,
Jindrich