ng0 <n...@we.make.ritual.n0.is> writes: > John Darrington <j...@darrington.wattle.id.au> writes: > >> I would not be at all suprised if there were more incompatibilities like >> this. Ought we not have a lint rule that checks this? >> >> J' >> >> On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 12:35:54AM +0800, Alex Vong wrote: >> Hi guixes, >> >> First, congratulations to Ricardo Wurmus as new maintainer and the new >> 0.11 release is good (it passed all tests)! >> >> I notice 'octave 4.0.2' has 'openssl@1.0.2h' as one of its inputs. As >> far as I know, gplv3 is incompatible with openssl license >> (https://people.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl.html). >> >> How should we fix this? >> >> >> Cheers, >> Alex >> >> -- >> Avoid eavesdropping. Send strong encryted email. >> PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 >> fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285 A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3 >> See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key. >> > > Isn't this an upstream problem? I don't know octave but is openssl > required? Can it be replaced by something different? > > Does this require upstream action/reporting?
I remember reading that octave devs are aware of the problem, but it is difficult to change the license since octave has no copyright assignment (like guix), Note that this is from my memory, so I could have got it wrong.
