Re: ok for Redland to link against openssl?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Thanks for the quick response!
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 01:57:40PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
>On Tue Sep 02 14:17, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> Currently morla (ITP bug#431824) cannot be packaged as it is GPL.
>> Should I convince upstream to dual-license, or convince Redland
>> maintainer to extend with a GPL-compatible package non-postgres
>If upstream morla uses redland linked against OpenSSL then they don't
>have permission to distribute the resulting binaries either, so
>upstream probably want to know.
I guess they are not directly hurt by this - only when Redland is linked
against Postgres and Postgres is linked against openssl does this
But I will inform upstream anyway, to be on the safe side.
>It would probably be enough for ether morla or both morla and redland
>to add an openssl exception to their GPL licence.
>I've downgraded the bug and retitled it.
>The normal response would be to convince upstream to licence
>appropriately for linking against an Apache licence and an OpenSSL
Ok. I will try convince upstream to adjust their license, then.
Thanks alot for the detailed and sharp response!
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----