On 06/23/2009 03:13 PM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> writes:
>
>> Re: licensing: the current version doesn't have explicit licensing in
>> the source. I exchanged mails directly with the upstream author, and
>> he confirmed that it is licensed under the same terms as perl (GPL or
>> Artistic). The next release will include the license as part of the
>> package.
>
> Does that work? I'd assume you would also need the OpenSSL license
> exemption.
I agree that's a concern, though the Artistic license doesn't need any
such exception. So maybe (GPL | Artistic) is equivalent to (Artistic)
in this case?
There are other OpenSSL perl bindings in debian that have the same
license, though, and seem to be intact with no outstanding bugs (which
isn't to say that's not a bug, of course). For example, see
libcrypt-openssl-{rsa,dsa,random,bignum}-perl.
I raised this issue on debian-perl earlier today:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-perl/2009/06/msg00083.html
but haven't gotten any followup yet from the maintainers of the other
packages in a similar situation.
--dkg
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature