Re: licensing confusion
Marek Habersack wrote, among other interesting stuff:
ok, I have said it in other mail, the terms for the closed-source,
commercial, license, is that it applies /if you dont want to or cannot
use the FS-OSS license/.
[T]he thing at stake is the use of OpenSSL or Cryptlib in the
Caudium project. Looking at , I see clauses which make
cryptlib not compatible with clauses #5 and #6 of the DFSG.
Huh? I see no such clauses, unless you're refering to the alternate
terms of distribution.
What made me wonder were the statements:
As I have already said, I think so. But I am a newbie in debian-legal (I
am a paralegal) and my opinion is non-authoritative.
Cryptlib itself has it's own copyleft which on the face seems to be
GPL compatible. [But I've only spent 2-3 minutes glancing at the
license... closer examination is probably warranted.]
I'd love to learn whether it can be packaged for Debian and used in
Oh, and we cannot relicense the Caudium code, as we aren't the
original copyright holders of the entire code. Also, I would like to
know whether it's ok for me to issue an ITP for Cryptlib.
What you need to do is file an ITP, then bring the texts of the
licenses themselves so they can be analyzed by -legal for their DFSG
Right, ok, that's what I'll do.
Caudium (GPL) + Cryptlib (2clBSD) = OK
Caudium + OpenSSL = not OK, maybe better try GNUTLS...?
s HTH Massa