[Buildroot] [PATCH] Allow PHP to compile ans link with berkeleydb 6

[Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be>]

On 10/08/13 10:01, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Dear Arnout Vandecappelle,
>
> On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 09:20:20 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:
>
>>    I didn't follow the conversation on IRC, but IMHO this proposal has
>> important political implications.  With this change, we are taking a
>> stand: non-copyleft software should be the default. So in my opinion,
>> we should instead make the default berkeleydb v6 and add a
>> berkeleydb5 package for PHP.
>
> This solution is also fine with me. In the mean time, I still believe
> reverting the patch that bumps to v6 is for the moment the best action
> to take, until someone steps up to make the change to berkeleydb v6.
>
> However, AGPLv3+ (the new license of berkeleydb) is a fairly strong
> license, so I'm quite sure a number of embedded system markers would be
> interested in having the ability to build Python, or Perl, against a
> non-strongly-copyleft licensed version of berkeleydb.

  Indeed, I think it may be a good idea to offer the user the possibility 
to use a non-copyleft version. But that's something completely different 
than forcing the user to use an old version just because the current one 
has strong copyleft...

  BTW for the typical embedded use cases, AGPL is hardly stronger than 
GPL. The "remote user" is typically the owner of the embedded device so 
the rights granted under GPL already apply.


>> netatalk: GPLv2+ -> compatible (note that _LICENSE is missing)
>> perl: Aristic is not compatible, but GPLv1+ is (note that _LICENSE is
>> wrong)
>
> But aren't all Perl modules licensed under the Artistic license? Not
> sure if it can cause some problems with berkeleydb being AGPLv3+,
> though.

  I haven't checked everything, but the ones I looked at either specify 
"GPL or Artistic", or "under the same terms as Perl".


>> python: PSF license v2 is compatible
>> ruby: Ruby license is probably incompatible, but BSD-2c is (note that
>> _LICENSE is wrong). Unfortunately, there are also a few incompatible
>> files in the ruby distribution.
>>
>>    Footnote: except for python, none of the licenses above are
>> actually correctly defined in buildroot. This worries me...
>
> Well, licensing information is tricky to get right. I believe the kind
> of review you made is typically what makes the licensing information
> progressively better.

  You're saying I should produce patches, right? :-)

  Regards,
  Arnout


-- 
Arnout Vandecappelle                          arnout at mind be
Senior Embedded Software Architect            +32-16-286500
Essensium/Mind                                http://www.mind.be
G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium           BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven
LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle
GPG fingerprint:  7CB5 E4CC 6C2E EFD4 6E3D A754 F963 ECAB 2450 2F1F