Re: Netatalk and OpenSSL licencing
Freek Dijkstra <debian_public@macfreek.nl> wrote:
> 1. Has anything changed in the statement made to debian-legal in 2002?
It's still the case that the openssl license is considered incompatible
with the GPL.
> 2. Is the netatalk upstream author correct that he cannot reasonably make
> the exception (without asking all possible contributors)
Yup. You can't change the license something is under without the
permission of the copyright holder, and adding an exception for openssl
is changing the license.
> 3. Is there any way of getting netatalk with encrypted passwords in sarge?
> I can think of source-only distributions, or asking to move it out of
> main. However, I do not fully understand the implications of this. So:
> what would be a possible next move? Maybe just put it in Sarge, and ask
> FSF to sue you to create legal precedent? :-)
GnuTLS has a openssl compatibility module. It's not complete, but it's
sufficient for some openssl code. GnuTLS is under the GPL, so there's no
problem with linking GPLed stuff against it. It's possible that you
could just link netatalk with that. Alternatively, the SSL code in
netatalk could be rewritten to use GnuTLS directly.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: