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

Re: RFS: ncrypt





On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. <bss@iguanasuicide.net> wrote:
In <20110219150340.GP11890@melusine.alphascorpii.net" target="_blank">20110219150340.GP11890@melusine.alphascorpii.net>, Alexander Reichle-
Schmehl wrote:
>> python-ncrypt - Python wrapper for OpenSSL
>
>[..]
>
>> My motivation for maintaining this package is: Dropbox, another package
>> which I plan to upload, depends on this package.
>
>Uhm... AFAIK dropbox used some lgpl libraries, and now we add openssl
>stuff?  Did anyone checked, if that's okay license wise?

LGPL + OpenSSL should be fine.  It's GPL + OpenSSL that is a problem, since
GPL required the combined work be available under the terms of the GPL and
those are incompatible with one or two clauses in the OpenSSL license.

LGPL makes fewer requirements on the programs that link with it with can be
satisfied at the same time as the OpenSSL license.  Basically, you have to
take the minimum steps to allow your software to be linked against a
compatible version of the LGPL code.

NB: IANADD; TINASOODP.
--
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.                   ,= ,-_-. =.
bss@iguanasuicide.net                   ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy         `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.net/                    \_/

AFAIK, the libraries that Dropbox uses are all licensed either under the MIT (Expat) license, the LGPL, or the OpenSSL license. The only thing in the Dropbox package that is licensed under the GPL is my actual packaging (the contents of debian/), but I can also change this if necessary.

Anyways, are there any problems/anything I've overlooked with my ncrypt packaging?

Vincent

Reply to: