Re: Bug#534338: OpenSSL bindings for Perl -- licensing questions
On Wed, 2012-27-06 at 14:25 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 06/27/2012 01:54 PM, Guy Hulbert wrote:
> > Define "derivative". Until it's compiled, it's not.
> Right. Unfortunately for debian, and any other binary distributor of
> CPAN modules, we distribute it compiled.
> > Tha *compiler*. So it might be a problem for Debian except that Debian
> > is NOT using the string "OpenSSL". It is using the lower-case version.
> > So there's no violation ... though IANAL.
> Wow, there's a way to thread the needle that hadn't occurred to me. Was
> this what you were trying to point out before? I have my doubts about
I had not thought carefully initially the whole discussion is so
ridiculous on its face that I just reacted. I told you once you could
> the legitimacy of the case of the package name as a differentiator,
> frankly, but i suppose that's one approach to take. Should we also
> change the case of the man pages and the paths to the .pm files?
This is clearly ridiculous.
I was just referring to the debian package name. I thought that was
obvious from context.
> > IMO, if Debian is to do anything, it should first contact the "OpenSSL
> > Project" to see if there's a problem. Harassing CPAN authors seems
> > premature to me.
> I'm not sure how the debian project can ask the OpenSSL project for
> written permission to use the string in these projects, since:
Perhaps you should first get written permission to use the OpenSSL
string in this email thread.