Re: OpenSSL exception for GPLed code?
>>>>> "Branden" == Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes:
Branden> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 05:43:48PM +0200, Josip Rodin
Branden> wrote:
>> I cannot[1] release new Nessus[2] packages because the upstream
>> GPLed code has switched to using OpenSSL. Sadly, the parts of
>> Nessus that are LGPL don't link to OpenSSL, yet those that are
>> GPL do. :/
>>
>> So I was wondering, where can I find a suitable license text
>> that would have to be added to the Nessus license in order to
>> fully legalize linking to OpenSSL? I would forward this to the
>> upstream author for ratification.
Branden> I suggest following the model in
Branden> /usr/share/doc/apt/copyright. I particularly recommend
Branden> preserving the sunset clause (adjusting the date, of
Branden> course), so as to hopefully motivate one of the parties
Branden> to budge on this issue. Preferably OpenSSL.
Is a sunset clause DFSG free? It seems that it shouldn't be; implicit
in clause 1 at least to me is the continued right of free
distribution. From a practical matter it seems we need to allow
distribution at least through the given release cycle, but really
having to go back and remove packages from archive.debian.org seems
undesirable and non-free.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: