On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 12:56:44AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > * Thomas Bushnell BSG
> | If the GPL'd source is useful with various equivalent libraries, some > | GPL-incompatible, some not, then the shipper of the GPL'd source is > | not breaking any rules, because they are not necessarily intending to > | combine their code with the incompatible code. > | If you are shipping *binaries* however, which declare shared library > | dependencies on the GPL-incompatible library, then that excuse > | vanishes. > So if you have: > Package: foo > Depends libfoo, libc6 > Package: libfoo > Depends: libbar | libbar-ssl, libc6 > Package: libbar > Depends: libc6 > Package: libbar-ssl > Depends: libc6, libssl > (Assume that foo, libfoo and libbar are all licenced under the GPL, > libbar with a licence exception allowing it to be linked to openssl. > Also assume that libbar and libbar-ssl are ABI-compatible.) > Is this allowed? I believe that it is, so long as we aren't shipping any other packages that transitively depend on both foo and libbar-ssl, overriding foo's preference. > Would it be allowed if the package stanza for libfoo read: > Package: libfoo > Depends: libbar-ssl | libbar, libc6 I believe that it is not. If you want actual arguments on the subject, they're buried somewhere in debian-legal archives from three years ago. ;) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
