[makomk]

The Affero GPL has a clause requiring the operators of network servers that use AGPL code to provide full source of the network server. Berkley DB is used in, amongst other places, Subversion - so when they next do a distro upgrade in a few months, a whole bunch of developers are going to find they're no longer license compliant and have no easy way of becoming license compliant.

[glogla]

That's nonsense.

Using SVN has nothing to do with SVN being under GPL2, GPL3, AGPL, Apache or any other license that allows for free use, as long as you don't modify SVN and distribute (or provision over the network, in case of AGPL) the modified version. Using SVN to hosting your code repository is in no way modifying and distributing it.

[__alexs]

Unless you are modifying the code the section 13 of the AGPL does not require you to distribute source at all so most distribution users would never notice the difference. I guess this might effect you if you had some crazy internal fork of BerkeleyDB that you were regularly merging upstream into but that doesn't seem like a huge use-case for this software somehow.

[tome]

Subversion is Apache licensed, so I fail to see how this would be a problem.

[Sanddancer]

Subversion uses bdb as its backend.

[tome]

And the Apache licensed Subversion is still compatible with AGPL licensed BDB. What am I missing here?

[tome]

Apparently the Apache License is not compatible with AGPLv3. I confess I do not understand why.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/07/msg00041.html

[krakensden]

I thought the BDB backend for Subversion had been deprecated for years...