Re: Netatalk and OpenSSL licencing
Freek Dijkstra <debian_public@macfreek.nl> wrote:
> Personally I fear the upstream maintainers are not willing to change their
> code for just this. After all, they already link with the technically
> excellent OpenSSL library, which is indeed open source.
If you're lucky, no code changes would be needed.
> I take it that it is not possible to put a source-only (no-binary)
> distribution) in the main section of Debian?
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.
The whole argument over whether linking against a library makes a
derived work has never (as far as I'm aware) been tested in court. It's
probably the weakest part of the GPL.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: