Does Debian dislike AGPL?

Today I was going to compile dash cryptcoin from the sources.

berkeleydbDebian ships Berkeley DB version 5.3 by default so the configure script of dash argued that it likes version 4.8 for portability reasons.

2225367Too bad that current Debian version don’t ship 4.8 anymore. What’s worse thought is that 4.8 and 5.x packages are mutually exclusive as I discovered by naively adding squeezy repositories to the sources available in my machine. I quite ignore the reason why two major release of a library can’t live side by side. It has been made for decades with many other libraries, Gtk 2 and 3 are the first example I can recall.

So studying how to solve the issue I discovered that Oracle which I thought to have an odi-et-amo attitude toward free-as-in-freedom software.

In fact I somehow convinced myself that Oracle loved non-copyleft sw preferring such licences over the GNU General Public License.

I was wrong as Oracle released the latest version of BDB under Affero-GPL, which is – as far as I know – the license that strives to protect the liberty of people using the software it protects.

You may be surprised to discover that Debian do not and plan not to include any AGPL-released Berkeley DB library:

RM: db6.0 — ROM; AfferoGPL not compatible with many packages and we don’t want to have more than 1 Berkeley DB in the archive

 Hi, I hereby request the package to be remove due the license change that is incompatible with many packages that use Berkeley DB library. And I certainly don’t want to have more than one Berkeley DB package in the archive due the database format incompatibility. Thus please remove the package and never allow it back, unless there’s a package it requires Berkeley DB 6.0+ (in that case I would suggest to add agpl into library name… something like this libdb-6.0-agpl). Ccing to ftpmaster, so they can make the notes when accepting/rejecting packages.


We believe that the bug you reported is now fixed; the following package(s) have been removed from unstable:

I dare say that I was quite mithereda[^1] discovering Debian that willfully choose not to include an AGPL library. I hope I have misunderstood the issue.

<

p class=”message”>[^1]: to mither:  to make a fuss, to pester.

Both aren’t “liberi”

1000px-Chromium_11_Logo.svgChrome – one of the most widespread browser – is proprietary software with Chromium being is “open source” base.

According to Debian #Debian Bug report logs for “786909 – chromium: unconditionally downloads binary blob” Chromium even when built from source code still try to inject binary blobs – proprietary software – on your system without notifying the owner of the system where it runs. So we cannot really trust it anymore, we shouldn’t consider Chromium as “software libero” (or libre or Free-as-in-freedom-software)

That’s not a good.

 

Gratuito a Tutti i Costi

Sorgente: Gratuito a Tutti i Costi | MadBob

Come tutti ben sappiamo, purtroppo, negli anni si è ampiamente diffuso il binomio “software libero = gratis”

Forse sarebbe opportuno provare a sopperire a questo luogo comune del software libero “gratuito a tutti i costi”, per dare maggiore risalto alle sue effettive proprietà, ed optare per una strategia di comunicazione anti-ciclica. Mentre tutti regalano (o almeno fingono di regalare, ma il risultato percepito è lo stesso…), si dovrebbe porre l’attenzione sul fatto che il software libero – in qualità di software, e dunque prodotto ingegneristico per la cui produzione sono necessarie risorse – abbisogna di supporto, certamente di carattere tecnico (patch, traduzioni e documentazione sono sempre molto gradite) ma anche e soprattutto di carattere economico.

On being pro GPL

That’s am interesting point of view on the never really settled arguments between copyleft and non copyleft software licences.
http://m.slashdot.org/story/297041

He says, “I am not only pro-copyleft, I am also pro-permissive licensing. The difference between these is tactics: the first tactic is towards guaranteeing user freedom, the second tactic is toward pushing adoption. I am generally pro-freedom, but sometimes pushing adoption is important, especially if you’re pushing standards and the like. But let’s step back for a moment. One thing that’s true is that over the last many years we’ve seen an explosion of free and open source software… at the same time that computers have become more locked down than ever before! How can this be?

How To Make a Site Private In WordPress Multisite

Sometimes you just want to have a private log, a diary of your own. Once upon a time you would have written it on a paper diary. In more recent years you would have created a file or a set of files on your own storage. Nowadays we use multiple devices, a private blog may allow you to record feelings and thoughts you want to keep private as soon as they spring in your mind.

This little WordPress plugin comes to solve this requirement.

If you want to make a site private within your WordPress multisite network, the easiest thing to do is install the More Privacy Options plugin, available for free in the WordPress plugin repository. This plugin has an excellent reputation and is updated regularly.

It adds three more privacy options to the Settings >> Privacy page in the dashboard:

  • Blog visible to any logged in community member – “Network Users Only”
  • Blog visible only to registered users of blog – “Blog Members Only”
  • Blog visible only to administrators – “Admins Only”

From: How To Make a Site Private In WordPress Multisite – WPMU DEV