When is db5 NOT going to included

AGPL indeed adds such a scenario, in case you offer services to other users. In contrast to plain GPL, it's not only relevant who "runs" (operates) the software, but also who uses it e.g. in their web browser.
I always understood that a person could use AGPL but not modify or distribute any such modifications. What you're suggesting is one cannot use AGPL in a commercial environment or make money off it. What's the point of distributing or even using such software then?

Reading the AGPL license one could argue that if a website is running an AGPL licensed web server, the content on the site is automatically AGPL. If a person then navigates to that site and uses the information on that site to develop some kind of work (not necessarily software but anything, for instance an essay) such work would also be AGPL. Am I understanding this correctly? Seems cancerous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mer
cy@ I'm not entirely sure about such edge cases, the intent of AGPL seems to be to "protect" software for any kind of "cloud services". But this ambiguity is typically one of the major legal problems about anything *GPL, isn't it?
 
zirias@,

I'm not enamoured with cloud services. It's a means to take control away from the individual and put it into the hands of the corporation, especially to maintain a constant revenue stream. An extreme example is M$'s Windows Cloud service. IMO GPL tries to make itself as arcane as possible in order to give them latitude should any dispute end up in court. This seems counterintuitive because ambiguity in legal matters is like rolling dice in a crap shoot. Overly complex contracts often end up in court.
 
DEFAULT_VERSIONS is not used in devel/apr1 and changing it has no effect. The default is in the Makefile. If building the port it is possible to choose the database it uses at the configuration stage. I deselected db5 and it then set gdbm instead. That's licensed under GPLv3+. I didn't choose it. It was chosen by default when I rejected db5.
 
Back
Top