This one time, at band camp, William Pitcock said: > Hi, > > On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 11:21 +0200, Guus Sliepen wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 11:43:53PM -0500, William Pitcock wrote: > > > > > * URL : http://www.ircd-charybdis.net > > > * License : GPL > > > > > > Like oftc-hybrid, I intend to link this to OpenSSL. Since nobody > > > seems to care about that, I'm going to assume that it's OK. > > > > People DO care, and it is not OK. Linking with OpenSSL is only allowed > > if there is an exemption to the license of charybdis that explicitly > > allows linking to the OpenSSL. See for example this page which gives a > > nice summary and links to some related debian-legal emails: > > So, in a nutshell, nobody in the current IRCd development community > cares about perceived GPL+OpenSSL compatibility issues, so only Debian > does, which is "ok", but that's not so useful when Debian is already > shipping packages linked against OpenSSL with no exception (see below). Upstreams being brain dead about licensing issues is not something really new, unfortunately. This issue has been done to death already, and it seems to me that protesting that we have some other similar bugs is not a justification to introduce a new one. For GPLv3, it does seem like AJ's idea of putting openssl in essential is a reasonable one, and I'd quite like to see it. That doesn't help GPLv2 only apps, though, so I think we're just going to have to live with the status quo on that one. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : sgran@debian.org | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature