Re: spring packages
On Monday 26 October 2009 00:44:48 Sylvain Beucler wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 09:37:20AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > >> Why do you override possible-gpl-code-linked-with-openssl?
> > >
> > > It is told on disclaimer on debian/control, for IRC chatting with a
> > > former ftp master it came clear that if the code does not need any ssl
> > > symbol, the conflict between openssl and gpl does not apply, even if
> > > ldd seems to suggests the opposite. (Probably a lintian bug should be
> > > open for that).
> >
> > Hmm. I've often seen people switch to the GNUTLS version of curl to
> > get transitive GPL compliance.
>
> IHMO linking through a wrapper is still linking, and needs to respect
> the licenses. Paul's suggestion seems wise (no pun intended ;)).
The linking is not explicit, if I build a libtorrent-rasterbar without ssl
support SpringLobby will end without ldd showing up this dependecy.
And openssl license talks about "use", "distribute" and "advertise" which
SpringLobby don't do in any part of the code (as grep in the source or objdump
in the binary can show) or in the original tarball packaging.
It sounds fine for me and there is a similar but different ( libtorrent-
rasterbar is not GPL) debian-legal thread about it [0].
[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/11/threads.html#00061
--
ESC:wq
Reply to: