Stefan de Konink dijo [Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 10:34:18PM +0100]: > >This is completely expectable, as Cherokee now depends on OpenSSL for > >criptography. Now, in human-speak, what is the problem with this? > >Basically, that the OpenSSL and the GPL licenses are not mutually > >compatible [1] (basically, the OpenSSL license includes an advertising > >clause, similar to the four-clause BSD license), and GPLed projects > >using OpenSSL must add an exception to their licensing terms. > > So a lot of @#$&( was pasted about not being compatible, why is not > pasted *what* is not compatible?
Please take a look at the links I gave, it is spelt out quite easily. What happens is well-known - The GPL does not allow "any aditional conditions" to be imposed over a GPLed project, but OpenSSL requires all projects to include a notice that they are linking against OpenSSL. This is often done just by the fact of linking, as OpenSSL includes that notice (if I am not mistaken). But it _is_ an extra restriction, which makes both licenses (although both free) mutually incompatible. > >Just... As an extra word: I know many people view Debian as the > >licensing zealots. In some sense, we are... But anyway, this is > >something not only said by us. The link I sent comes from a Gnome > >developer; I found other links detailing this situation at Wikipedia > >[2], wget [3], and even OpenSSL itself [4]. > > If it was my own software I would totally not care if it was not in > Debian anymore, and only available for persons that wanted my > software. So eventually because of the non-sense involved would > switch from Debian anyway ;) The good thing here is that there are some people less eager to get angry ;-) Álvaro has already told me he will get this exception in as soon as possible. And, yes, not being able to be included in Debian is always a possibility, although it _does_ give a good exposure to the project. > >This is a minor change, but please treat it with high priority - It > >basically means Cherokee, as it is now, is not legally distributable > >when compiled with SSL support. > > So the above statement applies already :) Maybe a read PR thing > would be: to put on /. Cherokee doesn't care about Debian's > copyright policy, and switches to the fastest open source > implementation of SSL. And put some nice benchmarks of the latest > release with it. Cherokee would not be the first project in this situation. And over the years, many projects have included the relevant lines. It is not Debian's copyright policy - it is Debian's stubornness not to do anything illegal :) Of course Debian includes and uses OpenSSL. And yes, I agree with you, there is no point in linking against libgnutls if this implementation is as free as GNU's (even with this small, but easily fixable, problem). -- Gunnar Wolf - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244 PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23 Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF _______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
