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

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
ignore me.

> 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.



Reply to: