Questions related to dbus

[Sathish, Karthika IN BLR STS]

Hello Experts,

Thanks for the valuable information.

Regards,
Karthika

-----Original Message-----
From: Simon McVittie [mailto:simon.mcvittie at collabora.co.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 5:44 PM
To: Sathish, Karthika IN BLR STS
Subject: Re: Questions related to dbus

On 26/02/15 11:22, Sathish, Karthika IN BLR STS wrote:
> These are the files that had Academic free license version 2.0 and 1.1 
> instead of Academic free license version 2.1:-

Please write to the mailing list, not to me personally: I am not the only D-Bus maintainer, and this is useful information to have in public.

> dbus-1.2.24\dbus\dbus-arch-deps.h.in (Academic free license V2.0) 
> dbus-1.2.24\dbus\dbus-arch-deps.h (Academic free license V2.0)

d-a-d.h is automatically generated from d-a-d.h.in, so these are essentially the same file.

I notice you have D-Bus 1.2.x. This does not have any sort of upstream support any more: in particular, we do not fix known security vulnerabilities in this branch. D-Bus 1.8.x is the current stable branch and the recommended version. 1.6.x is currently also semi-supported, for security fixes only.

If you are using D-Bus on Windows (as is suggested by the use of backslashes in your paths) and you don't like copyleft, then you should be aware of https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57272 which is fixed in the 1.9.x development branch but not in 1.8.x or older. 
However, that only makes dbus-daemon and some regression tests effectively GPL: it does not change the effective license of libdbus.

> dbus-1.2.24\doc\introspect.dtd (Academic free license V1.1 or greater)

I don't think the license of this file is directly relevant to you in any case. If you link this file into proprietary software, you're doing something very strange :-)

> I will use Academic free license V2.1 instead of 2.0 and 1.1 like you mentioned in the last mail.

To be clear, I did not, and cannot, give permission to select AFL-2.1 instead of AFL-2.0: I am not the copyright holder on the relevant code, so it is Red Hat's permission you would need, not mine.

Hopefully someone from Red Hat will say "yes" on the mailing list.

--
Simon McVittie
Collabora Ltd. <http://www.collabora.com/>