As an end-user, it's far easier to just compile it all myself (which is of course perfectly fine, and allowed according to both the GPL and the openssl licence) then to change the code of netatalk to have it link to gnutls.
Fine. If you choose not to help others, that's your choice. I don't like it.
PS: to play the devils advocate on this list: is this !@#&$(%$ reallynecessary for me as an end-user to get open-source software to work?Sadly, yes, someone has to do this, until laws change. [...]I don't think laws have anything to do with it.
Copyright law means we need permission for acts which would otherwise infringe copyright. If there was no legal support for copyright, you could distribute compiled GPL'd OpenSSL-using works without legal trouble.
The issue at case (im my naive opinion) is that GPL is so strict [...]
GPL is a copyleft, which means that it somehow requires derived works to be under the same licence, which is stronger than DFSG 3. OpenSSL's licence contains something that prevents derived works being covered by the GPL. If you want to argue that copyleft is wrong for software, this is not the list for that and I'm not sure what is. Maybe ox-en or gnu-misc, but maybe not.
If this is not the issue, please have someone explain me what does preventnetatalk from linking with openssl and distributing it in Debian.
We want copyright permission from the copyright holders for this act not covered by their licences in combination. Either openssl or netatalk could give an exception. They haven't give it, for whatever reasons. Regardless of what we think of their reasons, we don't have permission...
-- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing Please email about: BT alternative for line rental+DSL; Education on SMEs+EU FP6; office filing that works fast