Hi everyone, >On 6/4/05, Dafydd Harries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I have a package Alexandria, written in Ruby, which will depend on a >> new library in the next version. This library, ruby-zoom, is an LGPL Ruby >> binding of libyaz. libyaz links to OpenSSL and is, as far as I can tell, >> under a 2-clause BSD licence. Everything fine so far. >> >> But it seems to me that it will be impossible for Alexandria, which is >> under the GPL, to use ruby-zoom legally as, by doing so, it will be >> linking against OpenSSL, which is under a GPL-incompatible licence. Am I >> right in thinking so? > >It is Debian's historical practice, and the FSF's stance, not to >permit this kind of dependency (direct or indirect). I believe >strongly, and have adduced plenty of case law to demonstrate, that the >FSF's GPL FAQ is in error on this point. I would not say, however, >that my opinion represents a debian-legal consensus. See recent >debian-legal threads about Quagga, which is in a similar position. > >> My understanding of this issue is based on reading this thread: >> >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/10/msg00113.html >> >> If there is indeed a licence problem here, I can see two main solutions: >> >> - Try to get libyaz in Debian to link against GnuTLS instead of >> OpenSSL. >> >> - Get the maintainer of Alexandria to make an exception for linking >> against OpenSSL. > >The latter is probably a better choice (at least in the short term), >since the OpenSSL shim for GNU TLS was added to the GPL (not LGPL) >libgnutls-extra. (It's possible that it has since been moved into the >LGPL portion, but I don't think so.) While I don't believe in the >FSF's theories about linking causing "GPL violation" (especially in >the indirect scenario), it's the Debian way to request a clarification >from upstream. > >> I notice that the Tellico package, which is GPL, already links against >> libyaz. Is this a licence violation? > >No; but there again, it would probably be best to check with upstream >about whether they would mind adding an explicit "OpenSSL exemption". >Wishlist bug?
Sorry to arrive late, I am not on -legal, amd only noticed this thread during one of my usual checking of what's happening around here. I appear to be the maintainer of tellico, so I would like to have a good advice on what to do for this problem. I have CC'ed Robby Stephenson, who is the upstream author of Tellico, so he can know and make a decision about it if he thinks he should. Regards, Regis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
