[Bug 269857] devel/apr1: update to 1.7.3

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=269857

--- Comment #14 from John Hein <jcfyecrayz@liamekaens.com> ---
(In reply to Enji Cooper from comment #9)
> Does it make sense to mark this AGPL if the library is linked dynamically? IANAL and I'm not sure about static linking, but I thought dynamic linking only affected the resulting program once the code (as a whole) was run?

Whether devel/apr1 is considered a 'derivative work' of berkeley db is less of
a technical question - static vs dynamic linking is not an important
distinction here.  It's a more of a legal question.  FSF seems to want linking
with (and presumably using) a library to indicate a derivative work:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL

Whether a court agrees with that FSF assertion would likely depend on the case.
 The fact that FSF has always asserted that position for GPL openly in public
may be part of the evidence that COULD be used in a court case.  Until Oracle
states that linking and using their AGPLv3-covered BDB library without
modification can be treated as not a derivative work (or a court weighs in on
it), it is probably best to follow the FSF published guidelines.

It could also be that Oracle may state that certain clauses of the license do
not apply (like publishing source code if distributing the derived work).  It
might be easier to just pick a different license than to publish exceptions to
their license of choice - and they have not selected a different license.  So I
assume they picked AGPLv3 as the license that best matches their licensing
desires.

For devel/apr1, I might be inclined to turn off BDB as a default for apr1 now
that the default is to use the AGPLv3, but I have not surveyed all uses of apr
in the ports tree to see what would be affected by that change.  But either
way, it's best to mark it as affected by AGPLv3 so that unsuspecting users are
not blind-sided by possible license violations.

So answering your question(s) directly - yes, I believe it makes sense to mark
this as AGPL if using the AGPL licensed bdb library (regardless of the method
with which the library is pulled into apr).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.