[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: libreadline



On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 10:04:31PM +0200, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> * Jeroen Dekkers <jeroen@dekkers.cx> [020505 20:33]:
> > On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 07:40:59PM +0200, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> > > A few questions:
> > > 
> > > (1) How about this: I ship two versions of _socket.so in the python2.1
> > > package: One is linked with OpenSSL, the other doesn't include the SSL
> > > support. Upon loading, socket.py decides whether the interpreter is
> > > already linked with libreadline, and if that's the case, it imports the
> > > SSL-less _socket.so. Vice-versa with the readline module: It checks
> > > whether the interpreter is linked with the libssl, and if that's the
> > > case, it fails to import.
> > > 
> > > This would legally and morally satisfy the GPL, right ?
> > > 
> > > (2) If we shipped python2.1 with an SSL-less _socket.so, and
> > > alternatively distributed a python2.1-ssl package, which provides a
> > > SSL-enabled _socket.so, would that change anything ?
> > > 
> > > (2b) If the python2.1-ssl package included a note of warning, and
> > > perhaps a description how to optionally (!) disable the readline module,
> > > would that be better than (2) ?
> > > 
> > > (2c) If the installation of python2.1-ssl would remove the readline
> > > module, that should definitely satisfy the GPL, correct ?
> >  
> > (3) Link _socket.so with GnuTLS instead of OpenSSl. I don't know how
> >     feasible this is. 
> 
> From a first look, GNU TLS has a very different API. The current code in
> the socket module won't work with GNU TLS. 

This is indeed a problem.
 
> Furthermore, replacing OpenSSL with GNU TLS won't resolve the
> fundamental dilemma. We would face the same situation for any other
> package that includes a Python extension module with a GPL-incompatible,
> but DFSG-free license. If this is the last word, then Debian could only
> ship GPL-compatible Python modules (and the same was true for all
> derived distributions). This seems to be in conflict with the Social
> Contract.

I don't think there is one solution for this, we should look at each
module seperately to see how to solve the problem. IMHO free, GPL
incompatible licenses are only annoying.

Jeroen Dekkers
-- 
Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: jdekkers@jabber.org
Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org
IRC: jeroen@openprojects

Attachment: pgphQEuDLWoFy.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: