severity 488766 wishlist retitle 488766 librdf0-dev: Please provide gnutls flavor thanks 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. Matt -- Matthew Johnson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature