Hi Carlos, On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 12:32:10PM +0000, Carlos Morgado wrote: > On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 10:59:55PM +1100, Andrew Lau wrote: > > Hi everyone,
> > Just one little problem with packaging Balsa 2.0.3 so far. In line > > with Debian-legal's position, I have to ask for your permission to > > compile and link your software, Balsa with OpenSSL due to their > > advertising clause. You must also agree to extend the right to use the > > OpenSSL features of Balsa to our users. I know that this might sounds > > silly, but please note OpenSSL's position on GPL software [1]. > isn't it easier for debian to just consider openssl a system lib ? > but yes, i understand you point of view, it has come up before :\ The precise wording of the GPL is: [A]s a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. If we ship Balsa binaries with Debian, then OpenSSL accompanies the executable, and we cannot use this exception. The OpenSSL FAQ has glossed over this detail in the past; the FAQ Andrew links to still doesn't tell the *whole* story, but it's closer now than it was. > how do you handle the problem of multiple copyrights ? In the case of projects with a large number of copyright holders, the normal procedure is to make a "reasonable effort" to contact all copyright holders to get their consent. If you have a smaller number of significant contributors, it is obviously more important to get the consent of all contributors before modifying the license. If you are unable to accomplish a license change, gnutls seems to be an increasingly viable LGPL replacement for OpenSSL. Regards, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
pgpfcL0kueVB5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
