Re: Bug#595446: ntop: GPL code links openssl without a license exception
On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 09:20:11AM +0200, Luca Deri wrote:
> I have done the requested changes. I didn't know of GnuTSL, so I might consider using it in future releases.
> Please let me know if everything is ok now.
> Thanks a lot for all you're doing.
> Regards Luca
> On Sep 4, 2010, at 6:02 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 04, 2010 at 12:17:15PM +0200, Luca Deri wrote:
> >> Ola/Jordan
> >> tell me exactly what I need to write in the license and I will do
> >> Thanks Luca
> > Luca,
> > From what I understand, the following needs to be added to COPYING and to
> > the headers of the source files which use openssl:
> > ***
> > In addition, as a special exception, the copyright holders give
> > permission to link the code of portions of this program with the
> > OpenSSL library under certain conditions as described in each
> > individual source file, and distribute linked combinations
> > including the two.
> > You must obey the GNU General Public License in all respects
> > for all of the code used other than OpenSSL. If you modify
> > file(s) with this exception, you may extend this exception to your
> > version of the file(s), but you are not obligated to do so. If you
> > do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your
> > version. If you delete this exception statement from all source
> > files in the program, then also delete it here.
> > ***
> > You also need to include the openssl license in a LICENSE.OpenSSL file.
> > This is detailed a bit more in this debian-legal thread . This thread also has a copy
> > of LICENSE.OpenSSL that you can add.
> > Thank you for understanding, and also thanks for your work on this very useful application.
> >  http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00595.html
> > Regards,
> > Jordan Metzmeier
> We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them - Albert Einstein
It seems I forgot to CC the bug report as well as Ola on this email. I will be including debina-legal
on this one as well, as IANAL.
Thank you for including the exception in your license. There is still a problem however. I see
the you added to the COPYING file to your svn trunk. As I understand it, the 3.3 version
that Debian is shipping must be re-released with the license changes.
I have been unable to find an exact match to the current orig tarball for Debian, which is
3.3 without a minor version. I also checked you svn tags for something that might match.
When compared the earliest 3.3 revision on sourceforge, 3.3.7, the diffstat looks quite heavy:
120 files changed, 27096 insertions(+), 26818 deletions(-)
Do you mind re-releasing this tarball provided that debian-legal does not chime in and
tell us it is not required?