+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #973056 +++ --- Additional comment from Michel Alexandre Salim on 2013-07-04 08:31:58 EDT --- Note the license change in 6.0.20 to AGPL -- it might be worth discussing this in legal@ first --- Additional comment from Honza Horak on 2013-08-15 14:42:38 EDT --- License issues discussed at Debian list: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2013/07/msg00000.html --- Additional comment from Xose Vazquez Perez on 2013-08-16 09:01:32 EDT --- (In reply to Michel Alexandre Salim from comment #2) > Note the license change in 6.0.20 to AGPL [...] 6.0.20 and 6.0.19 bring the _same_ source code, only the LICENSE file was changed. And 6.0.19 is under the old license, the same as 5.3.21. --- Additional comment from Xose Vazquez Perez on 2013-08-16 09:03:37 EDT --- (In reply to Honza Horak from comment #3) > License issues discussed at Debian list: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2013/07/msg00000.html Thread in Fedora legal: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2013-July/thread.html#2191 --- Additional comment from Honza Horak on 2013-09-10 10:27:42 EDT --- I haven't found any try to convince upstream to re-license back, so I tried: https://forums.oracle.com/message/11183084#11183084 If there is a better place for requiring re-licensing, let's just put that request forward there. I know it's probably pointless, but I had to try before we start to port our tools to some other embedded databases. --- Additional comment from Honza Horak on 2013-11-06 06:53:55 EST --- Another interesting finding [1]: On 10/29/2013 03:44 PM, Gervase Markham wrote: > On 27/10/13 17:19, Ondřej Surý wrote: >> Since BSD-4-clause is not compatible with GPL do I understand it >> correctly that they basically made Berkeley DB 6.0.20 indistributable by >> us? Or am I missing something about mixing BSD-4-clause and AGPLv3? > > It depends on who the acknowledged party is. If it's the University of > California, Berkeley, then see: > > ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change > > In other words, such UCB files are now effectively 3-clause BSD and so > GPL-compatible. > > Gerv [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2013/10/msg00031.html --- Additional comment from Xose Vazquez Perez on 2013-11-17 18:12:21 EST --- FYI, some projects [0] are beginning to migrate to LMDB [1] . Since the LMDB API is similar to BerkeleyDB. [0] http://symas.com/mdb/#projects [1] http://symas.com/mdb/ http://www.openldap.org/devel/gitweb.cgi?p=openldap.git;a=tree;f=libraries/liblmdb --- Additional comment from Xose Vazquez Perez on 2013-11-25 16:42:48 EST --- repoquery --repoid rawhide-source --arch=src --whatrequires libdb-devel --qf '%{base_package_name}' All of these depend on libdb: 389-ds-base apr-util clisp cyrus-imapd cyrus-sasl dsniff evolution-data-server exim hail iproute isync jigdo libetpan libgda libpinyin libsolv nmh nss_updatedb nvi open-cobol opendkim openldap openser opensips pam pam_abl pam_ccreds perl perl-BDB perl-BerkeleyDB perl-DB_File perl-Digest-MD4 perl-Qt perl-eperl php postfix postler python python3-bsddb3 qpid-cpp redland rpm ruby sendmail sks spamprobe squid squidGuard subversion tabled trustedqsl webalizer xemacs zinnia --- Additional comment from Xose Vazquez Perez on 2014-04-16 03:21:04 EDT --- F21 System Wide Change: BerkeleyDB 6: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-April/197788.html https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BerkeleyDB_6 --- Additional comment from Honza Horak on 2014-05-15 11:27:44 EDT --- I've created a bug report in openSUSE bugzilla to get some feedback from them, hopefully they provide their POV as well. Anyway, according to Ondrej Sury from debian, guys there seem to be not shipping libdb-6 if not required by some package for its unique features (if there are any). Just FYI. --- Additional comment from Honza Horak on 2014-05-15 11:30:18 EDT --- (In reply to Honza Horak from comment #12) > I've created a bug report in openSUSE bugzilla to get some feedback from > them, hopefully they provide their POV as well. https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=878089 --- Additional comment from Honza Horak on 2014-06-20 04:07:44 EDT --- Debian started moving out of BDB (thread worth reading with some package-specific information): https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/06/msg00328.html --- Additional comment from Honza Horak on 2014-06-20 04:13:21 EDT --- A related article: https://lwn.net/Articles/557820/ --- Additional comment from Honza Horak on 2014-06-20 04:28:37 EDT --- This bug seems to be nice tracking bug for the future changes, so adding a KW and changing summary. --- Additional comment from Xose Vazquez Perez on 2015-04-21 10:21:26 EDT --- (In reply to Xose Vazquez Perez from comment #4) > (In reply to Michel Alexandre Salim from comment #2) > > > Note the license change in 6.0.20 to AGPL [...] > > > 6.0.20 and 6.0.19 bring the _same_ source code, only the LICENSE file was > changed. > > > And 6.0.19 is under the old license, the same as 5.3.21. Last one with *sleepycat licence* (6.0.19) was deleted from the oracle web: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/database-technologies/berkeleydb/downloads/index-082944.html For future reference, it can be downloaded from freebsd.org site and mirrors: http://distcache.freebsd.org/ports-distfiles/bdb/db-6.0.19.tar.gz
Making a seperate tracking bug for the issue as the bot seems to like overwriting changes made to the makeshift tracker.
Current packages that depend on libdb in rawhide can be found here with some infromation about their status: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pkubat/Draft_-_Removing_BerkeleyDB_from_Fedora A list of alternatives for Berkeley DB can be found over here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pkubat/BerkeleyDB_alternatives