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

Re: GPL-3 & openssl: provide a -nossl variant for a library

Why just not add a license exception as many other GPL projects do? 
Something like (copied from our Knot DNS d/copyright):

 In addition, as a special exception, the author of this program gives
 permission to link the code of its release with the OpenSSL project's
 "OpenSSL" library (or with modified versions of it that use the same
 license as the "OpenSSL" library), and distribute the linked
 executables. You must obey the GNU General Public License in all
 respects for all of the code used other than "OpenSSL".  If you
 modify this file, you may extend this exception to your version of
 the file, but you are not obligated to do so.  If you do not wish to
 do so, delete this exception statement from your version.


On Tue, Oct 21, 2014, at 15:58, Michael Fladischer wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm the maintainer for src:librabbitmq and the binary package
> librabbitmq1 is linked against libssl1.0.0 (OpenSSL).
> Now I was approached by Julien Kerihuel from the OpenChange project, who
> release their software under the terms of GPL-3, asking if I could
> provide an alternative to the OpenSSL-linked library so they can use it
> without causing a license conflict.
> Sadly librabbitmq only supports OpenSSL, there is rudimentary support
> for GnuTLS but it seems to be severely broken at the moment.
> Considering this, is it a good idea to provide a librabbitmq1-nossl
> binary package that was built without OpenSSL while still having
> librabbitmq1 with OpenSSL-support?
> I could not find another package that does this, so I assume that a
> similar situation did not yet occur (unlikely) or that there where
> arguments against providing such a package variant.
> Cheers,
> -- 
> Michael Fladischer
> Fladi.at
> Email had 1 attachment:
> + signature.asc
>   1k (application/pgp-signature)

Ondřej Surý <ondrej@sury.org>
Knot DNS (https://www.knot-dns.cz/) – a high-performance DNS server

Reply to: