Investigate license of librocksdb-sys

[david-martin]

See FOSSA report at https://app.fossa.com/projects/custom%2B162%2Fgit%2Bgithub.com%2FKuadrant%2Flimitador/refs/branch/main/e181a5aa3e6acbd3429923edd61b35a43d5abf17/issues/licensing?page=1&count=20&sort=issue_count_desc&grouping=revision&status=active&filter%5Btype%5D%5B0%5D=policy_flag&revisionScanId=62731053
which reports an AGPL-3.0 license.
The dependency has some specific licensing info at https://github.com/percona/PerconaFT?tab=readme-ov-file#license
The crate page lists 3 licenses (MIT, Apache2, BSD3) https://crates.io/crates/librocksdb-sys
However, the problem highlights is in some files like this:

Options are to rule out AGPL as the other more favourable licenses are actually applicable to what's being pulled in from the dependency, or find an alternative library with a suitable license.

[alexsnaps]

Options are to rule out AGPL as the other more favourable licenses are actually applicable to what's being pulled in from the dependency, or find an alternative library with a suitable license.

I guess I'm confused as to what's "a suitable license"? Limitador (and all of Kuadrant afaik) is Apache v2, this dependency is distributed under Apache v2 (along other licenses)... including that very file that's referenced in the screenshot, that's indeed from another library, that again states that part is Apache v2... so I am really confused what's being discussed here? How AGPL would need to be an exception? Or what "a suitable license" would be in this case? Is the dual/triple licensing the issue? Am I missing some other files that are indeed not okay from that report?

[alexsnaps]

@david-martin Can we close this?

[david-martin]

@alexsnaps Let's close it.
After discussion at the time of reporting, the license issues reported here were 'Ignored' in FOSSA. I believe the reason for that decision was because of what you said above.