On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 01:33:09PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Freek Dijkstra <debian_public@macfreek.nl> wrote: > > Personally I fear the upstream maintainers are not willing to change their > > code for just this. After all, they already link with the technically > > excellent OpenSSL library, which is indeed open source. > If you're lucky, no code changes would be needed. > > I take it that it is not possible to put a source-only (no-binary) > > distribution) in the main section of Debian? > Nope. The same argument actually applies - if netatalk is a derivative > of openssl (and if it's been coded against it, then the FSF would > probably claim that it is) then it's illegal to distribute it in any > form under the current license. Not exactly. The issue with GPL applications linking against OpenSSL is the GPL's broad definition of "source code", which for an application includes any libraries it links against *except* for components that are part of the OS and are not distributed with the application. Debian always fails to be eligible for the so-called "OS exemption", on account of this second requirement. In any case, the issue is not linked at all to the FSF's much weaker claim that applications constitute derivative works of libraries. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature