Re: OpenSSL license incompatibility
Achim Bohnet <ach@mpe.mpg.de> writes:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> No https? No spop? No imaps? No sftp? NO. If really necessary,
> ask upstream to resolve the conflict. Don't make Debian KDE not useable
> before trying to find a real fix upstream.
>
> Please don't 'solve' the conflict on the shoulders of Debians KDE users.
> I really hate being forced to go back to some of the other big
> linux distros.
The reason I was asking here first is that historically, the opinion
of the KDE upstream on these issues seems to be "License
incompatibilities don't matter in the slightest, and anybody who
worries about them is an idiot who's intent on wasting our time."
(Not just on the QT license before it became GPL'd, but more recently
on the issue of rms saying that the KDE project had violated the GPL
in the past and needed to have their rights under the GPL explicitly
reinstated by the authors of the code involved.) So I'd prefer to
approach them with something like "here's a patch which allows KDE to
use gnutls instead of libssl, which resolves license
incompatibilities." I'd suspect that if I just told them "you need to
fix this problem" they'd either ignore or flame me.
Unless I hear a reasonable explanation which convinces me that KDE's
use of libssl doesn't violate either the OpenSSL license or the GPL, I
do plan to write such a patch -- unless somebody else more familiar
with openssl and gnutls steps up to write it. But in the meantime, I
think Debian as a whole does care about honoring the licenses of the
software it distributes, even if other distributions sometimes ignore
them.
--
Daniel Schepler "Please don't disillusion me. I
schepler@math.berkeley.edu haven't had breakfast yet."
-- Orson Scott Card
Reply to: