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

Re: License issue with freeswan (Eric Young's libdes)

Hash: SHA1

Steve Langasek wrote:
| Which parts of freeswan link against libdes?  According to
| /usr/share/doc/freeswan/copyright, some parts are LGPL.  Do we know for
| sure that libdes+GPL is happening?
No, not for sure. However, since the copyright situation is difficult,
having many different copyright owners, I would assume so....
I have forwarded your mail to my recent upstream contact. Hopefully he
will know better.

| Also, since freeswan uses libdes internally (it does not appear to use
| libssl), if there is a GPL violation here, it is a violation whether or
| not the binaries are in main.

| If he can't release a new version with a changed license because of his
| contract, then what legal force does his email to freeswan upstream have?
| Perhaps he "doesn't care" about the advertising clause, but this is not
| the same thing as waiving the clause.
Yes, I had the same feeling about the email (that's the reason for
asking here for advice...). In fact, I don't think that his email has
any legal force.

| What is needed here is a license exemption from the freeswan copyright
| holders, granting permission to distribute binaries linked against
| libdes.
Is this enough ? Because of the advertising clause, would Debian be
forced to include such an advertisment in any release document ?

best regards,
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Debian - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


Reply to: