On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 09:21:40AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > GPLv2: > > * dpatch > > * debhelper > > Good to be cautious, but the purpose of these programs is to do things to > help create debian packages. As such, the resultant packages have no > dependence on these programs, to them, the packages are mere data. No > linking problem whatsoever.
Yeah. Furthermore, these packages are authored by Debian developers, and if they're trying to assert copyright over packages produced with them we need to land on them with both feet. It's an internal matter to clear up. > > - libmysqlclient12 > > This one is a bit of a problem. As I understand it, the licencing was > changed to pure-GPL in version 12 of the library, but to get around all the > usual hoo-hah with linking exceptions, MySQL have been working on a blanket > linking exception for anything licenced under a "free" licence. There have > been a few goes around with that. > > Basically, you'll probably be OK (especially since MySQL have specifically > mentioned the OpenSSL linking exception in discussions), but you might want > to hunt up the various discussions here in the past for details. If every author who had to add an OpenSSL linking exception would mail the OpenSSL developers and ask them to relicense OpenSSL under, say, the 2- or 3-clause BSD license (which is very, very close to its current license -- minus the vituperation against the GNU GPL), much time and trouble might be saved in the future. It's possible that in the years since since some developer placed a rant against the GNU GPL in his license, he's realized that the GNU GPL doesn't actually have the power to change the copyright license on third-party works. -- G. Branden Robinson | That's the saving grace of humor: Debian GNU/Linux | if you fail, no one is laughing at [EMAIL PROTECTED] | you. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- A. Whitney Brown
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
