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

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

Excerpts from Michael Fladischer's message of 2014-10-21 08:58:32 -0500:
> 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.

Perhaps consider linking it against cyassl? It has a minimal OpenSSL
compatibility API and is GPL2+ so it should be fine combined with

Reply to: