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

Re: ok for Redland to link against openssl?

severity 488766 wishlist
retitle 488766 librdf0-dev: Please provide gnutls flavor

On Tue Sep 02 14:17, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Hi,
> I filed bug#488766 some months ago with no response from maintainer.
> Could I please have some more eyeballs on that: Am I right that Redland 
> violates GPL?

No, it does not, because:

> Or is it ok since Redland is dual-licensed, so it should simply always 
> be considered as Apache licensed when used with Debian?

Correct. However, both licences should still be listed in
debian/copyright because if you were to rebuild it not linked against
openssl then you may chose either. It is the resulting linked binary
that may not be distributed under the GPL, but there are alternate
permissions which allow us to distribute, namely Apache+OpenSSL.

> 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 package?

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. 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 bug should only be wishlist
since there is nothing wrong with redland itself, nor is a change
required in general to use it in other programs. The normal response
would be to convince upstream to licence appropriately for linking
against an Apache licence and an OpenSSL licence.


Matthew Johnson

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: