Kai Storbeck <email@example.com> writes: > > I'm a bit perplexed that the module authors have anything to do with > this as long as they are clearly stating their code is released under > the artistic license. The license of the perl module is not the concern. The concern is that we are violating the license of the openssl software. > > Should Debian concern itself (too much) with the authority of such a > claim? Yes. Is there any reason to think that "The OpenSSL Project" does not have a valid claim on the headers in /usr/include/openssl? > Is it debians task to mediate between all open source forges > around the world and their claims for licensing? > It is Debian's task to make sure that our software archive is legal. We can help upstream here by getting them to where it is legal to redistribute functional builds of their software. We can also just stop distributing this software, or we can go through the process of renaming the software in Debian. Of all these options, having this problem fixed upstream seems to clearly be in the interest of not only Debian, but of many other users of this software. > Apologies if this is in the debian policy. It should be implicit that debian cannot ignore the software licenses terms for the software we are distributing.
Description: PGP signature