Re: Netatalk and OpenSSL licencing
On 09-08-2004 14:33, "Matthew Garrett" <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
wrote:
> Nope. The same argument actually applies - if netatalk is a derivative
> of openssl (and if it's been coded against it, then the FSF would
> probably claim that it is) then it's illegal to distribute it in any
> form under the current license.
Netatalk is absolutely NO derivate of openssl.
It is a standalone package which (mainly) provides Apple Filesharing
Protocol (AFP) support. It is very simular in functionality to Samba, if
you're familiar with that.
Netatalk CAN be linked against openssl, to provide password encryption.
The current package in sarge (testing) is not linked against OpenSSL, so all
passwords are sent in clear text over the line.
Does this, in any way, according to you, change if netatalk, linked against
OpenSSL is allowed to be distributed?
I am aware of the statment made at
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
stating, that, in some cases, you can just distribute the packages without
making an exception to the GPL (which the provider is willing, but unable to
make).
However, I do not entirally understand what is being said there. I (and the
current package maintainer) completely really on that "someone on
debian-legel" says that "GPL software linked against OpenSSL is not allowed
in the main archive without either a license exemption from the upstream
author of the GPL package"
source: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/10/msg00173.html
If this statement is incorrect, given the statement in the GPL-FAQ, please
let me know immediately!
Kind regards,
Freek Dijkstra
Reply to: