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

RE: Bug#147430: hpoj: Linking against OpenSSL licensing modificat ion (GPL)

Mark Purcell wrote:
> What I'm actually
> talking about is getting the licencing sorted out for the 
> next release of
> hpoj to go into unstable (sid), so from that side there is no 
> rush for HP
> to resolve the licence, just as long as it is being 
> progressed within HP.

Hi, Mark and everyone else.  At a status update, I met with our attorney
this afternoon and explained everything.  He understands the issue and said
he would get back to me within the next couple of weeks with a recommended
license-exception statement.  It may take a similar form to the FSF's
recommendation but spell out the exact license used by OpenSSL (stored in a
separate file in the hpoj package) for purposes of identifying OpenSSL.  It
may turn out to be broader than I would have preferred, but anything
narrower may end up being extremely hard to define adequately.  I'll let you
know when I find out more.

Since for various reasons I'm trying hard to release hpoj-0.90 by the end of
July, what are the long-term implications if for whatever reason this issue
isn't resolved by then and I have to release 0.90 without the special
exception for OpenSSL?  Will it be sufficient for me to subsequently update
the license statements in CVS and generate a corresponding patch which you
can apply to your 0.90 package in unstable (preferable), or would I have to
release a whole new tarball with a different version number (not
preferable)?  I don't think this will happen, but I'd like to have a
reasonable contingency plan in place anyway.

Thanks for your continued patience.


To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: