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

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

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 04:41:27PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> 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.
This is harder for OpenChange since it links against other GPLv3 projects,
most notably Samba.

Samba is unlikely to add such an exception.



> 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)

Reply to: