On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 03:26:56PM -0700, Daniel Schepler wrote: -snip- > reinstated by the authors of the code involved.) So I'd prefer to > approach them with something like "here's a patch which allows KDE to > use gnutls instead of libssl, which resolves license > incompatibilities." I'd suspect that if I just told them "you need to > fix this problem" they'd either ignore or flame me. > > Unless I hear a reasonable explanation which convinces me that KDE's > use of libssl doesn't violate either the OpenSSL license or the GPL, I > do plan to write such a patch -- unless somebody else more familiar > with openssl and gnutls steps up to write it. But in the meantime, I > think Debian as a whole does care about honoring the licenses of the > software it distributes, even if other distributions sometimes ignore > them.
Is gnutls lgpl yet? Otherwise, I am pretty certain KDE upstream will refuse a gnutls patch. If it is lgpl it shouldn't be too hard to convince them to take the patch. Chris
