Re: Copyright verification needed
Le vendredi 29 juin 2007 à 19:50 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : No. Section #6 only applies to components that link with the original or modified versions of the Software. It doesn't apply to derived works. I am afraid I am not following you. Section 6c of the QPL v1.0 restricts your ability to privately distribute components that link with the original or modified versions of the Software. You cannot opt out from this restriction, unless you refrain from developing such components. The DFSG require that you are able to develop such components, and the restriction is non-free. I cannot see how you can say that the QPL is DFSG-free [...] if you don't apply section #6. How can you escape from the restrictions set forth in section #6? By distributing the program as a modification to the Software. It is completely unpractical and implies distributing it as a set of patches, but the DFSG allow this. | This license is governed by the Laws of Norway. Disputes shall be | settled by Oslo City Court. This is a choice of law *and* a choice of venue. Sorry, I misread that one. Anyway I still don't think choice of venue to be a problem for open source licenses, but that's another discussion. (Oh, and don't misread me: even if by twisting the terms in the best possible way the license can be seen as free, it is a really crappy license.) -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Copyright verification needed
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 21:36:25 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote: Le vendredi 29 juin 2007 à 19:50 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : [...] I cannot see how you can say that the QPL is DFSG-free [...] if you don't apply section #6. How can you escape from the restrictions set forth in section #6? By distributing the program as a modification to the Software. It is completely unpractical and implies distributing it as a set of patches, but the DFSG allow this. Do you mean distributing a program that links with a QPLed library *as a patch against the library* under section 3 and 4 of the QPL? This seems really contorted... Among other things, clause 3b would kick in and a blanket permission to dual license the program would be granted to the initial developer of the library. But I seem to be in the minority by thinking that clause 3b fails the DFSG: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01736.html -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpuFNz0BmBEX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Copyright verification needed
On Friday 29 June 2007 00:36:43 Josselin Mouette wrote: Le jeudi 28 juin 2007 à 10:24 +0200, Bruno Costacurta a écrit : AFAICS you can use it legally if you port it to GNUTLS. - the actual code implemented a strong separation layer between OpenSSL and Qt (review of code can be made by independent party) thus licenses should not be mixed in their interpretations. Regardless of the implementation, a resulting binary that requires both OpenSSL and Qt to work is considered a derived work from both, and is therefore not distributable. Thanks to all for attention and follow up. Unfortunately I come to the conclusion that this planned packaging will be complicated regarding its licenses duties (porting to GnuTLS...etc..) and so decide to abandon the creation of the ITP (Intend To Package). Regards, Bruno Costacurta -- PGP key ID: 0x2e604d51 Key server: hkp://subkeys.pgp.net Key fingerprint = 713F 7956 9441 7DEF 58ED 1951 7E07 569B 2E60 4D51 -- pgpQOiXhRjrZP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Copyright verification needed
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:34:33 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mardi 26 juin 2007 à 00:48 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:06:58 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote: This is a bit more complicated. The QPL is DFSG-free, but only if you don't apply section #6 This is equivalent to saying that software solely released under the QPL does *not* comply with the DFSG. No. Section #6 only applies to components that link with the original or modified versions of the Software. It doesn't apply to derived works. I am afraid I am not following you. Section 6c of the QPL v1.0 restricts your ability to privately distribute components that link with the original or modified versions of the Software. You cannot opt out from this restriction, unless you refrain from developing such components. The DFSG require that you are able to develop such components, and the restriction is non-free. I cannot see how you can say that the QPL is DFSG-free [...] if you don't apply section #6. How can you escape from the restrictions set forth in section #6? When discussing whether a license meets the DFSG, patched versions of the license cannot help the unpatched original license to meet the DFSG... I'm not talking about a hypothetical patched license, and you should consider reading what people write before replying on a mailing list. I did read what you wrote, but I apparently misunderstood it. Sorry about that: in the above, I'm asking you to clarify what you meant... And anyway, you there's not only clause 6c: another issue that makes the QPL fail to meet the DFSG is the choice of venue. There is no choice of venue, only choice of law. AFAICS, we are talking about the QPL v1.0 as adopted by Trolltech AS for the Qt library. Is that right? If this is the case, the license states[1]: | This license is governed by the Laws of Norway. Disputes shall be | settled by Oslo City Court. This is a choice of law *and* a choice of venue. [1] http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/q/qt-x11-free/current/copyright P.S.: I think we should drop Bruno from the Cc: list, as he stated he's not interested in the ITP anymore. Bruno, if you are still interested in this discussion, please speak up and ask to be Cc:ed in the next messages... -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpL6f1b1dRXi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Copyright verification needed
Le vendredi 29 juin 2007 à 00:36 +0200, Josselin Mouette a écrit : Le jeudi 28 juin 2007 à 10:24 +0200, Bruno Costacurta a écrit : AFAICS you can use it legally if you port it to GNUTLS. - the actual code implemented a strong separation layer between OpenSSL and Qt (review of code can be made by independent party) thus licenses should not be mixed in their interpretations. Regardless of the implementation, a resulting binary that requires both OpenSSL and Qt to work is considered a derived work from both, and is therefore not distributable. Hmm, I forgot what I said earlier about the QPL when writing this. A work that links with both OpenSSL and Qt *is* distributable, but in this case section #6 of the QPL applies. I think this is not OK for main, but it is acceptable for non-free. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Copyright verification needed
On Wednesday 27 June 2007 09:51:19 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/27/07, Bruno Costacurta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gentlemen, thanks a lot for your attention and discussion. Can we come to a conclusion ? Shall I simply abandon at this stage any plan to package this application ? Should I continue to prepare and create an ITP (Intend To Package) to enter in an official package consideration ? AFAICS you can use it legally if you port it to GNUTLS. Hello, porting to GnuTLS is something we'll avoid. About the issues mentioned before, I can answer and propose : - the actual code implemented a strong separation layer between OpenSSL and Qt (review of code can be made by independent party) thus licenses should not be mixed in their interpretations. - current license / copyright might be adapted (meaning 'enforced and clarified', not 'relaxed') to answer concerns. Best Regards, Bruno Costacurta -- PGP key ID: 0x2e604d51 Key server: hkp://subkeys.pgp.net Key fingerprint = 713F 7956 9441 7DEF 58ED 1951 7E07 569B 2E60 4D51 -- pgpFclVmBYkzZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Copyright verification needed
On 6/28/07, Bruno Costacurta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, porting to GnuTLS is something we'll avoid. About the issues mentioned before, I can answer and propose : - the actual code implemented a strong separation layer between OpenSSL and Qt (review of code can be made by independent party) thus licenses should not be mixed in their interpretations. Well, if the FSF is right in their interpretation, this isn't enough. As long as a GPL library is linked to anything else, the GPL requires that the whole lot be GPL. OpenSSL is not GPL compatible. - current license / copyright might be adapted (meaning 'enforced and clarified', not 'relaxed') to answer concerns. What do you mean? -- Andrew Donnellan ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.comhttp://ajdlinux.wordpress.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 http://linux.org.auhttp://debian.org Spammers only === [EMAIL PROTECTED] === -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Copyright verification needed
On Thursday 28 June 2007 10:28:27 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/28/07, Bruno Costacurta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, porting to GnuTLS is something we'll avoid. About the issues mentioned before, I can answer and propose : - the actual code implemented a strong separation layer between OpenSSL and Qt (review of code can be made by independent party) thus licenses should not be mixed in their interpretations. Well, if the FSF is right in their interpretation, this isn't enough. As long as a GPL library is linked to anything else, the GPL requires that the whole lot be GPL. OpenSSL is not GPL compatible. - current license / copyright might be adapted (meaning 'enforced and clarified', not 'relaxed') to answer concerns. What do you mean? Well, the project team was thinking about something like an 'advertising-special-exception-whatever-clause'. Something acceptable is a such direction by sirs FSF, GPL and others ? ;-( Bye, Bruno -- Andrew Donnellan ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.comhttp://ajdlinux.wordpress.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 http://linux.org.auhttp://debian.org Spammers only === [EMAIL PROTECTED] === -- PGP key ID: 0x2e604d51 Key server: hkp://subkeys.pgp.net Key fingerprint = 713F 7956 9441 7DEF 58ED 1951 7E07 569B 2E60 4D51 -- pgpruv9xYalAS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Copyright verification needed
Le mardi 26 juin 2007 à 00:48 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:06:58 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote: This is a bit more complicated. The QPL is DFSG-free, but only if you don't apply section #6 This is equivalent to saying that software solely released under the QPL does *not* comply with the DFSG. No. Section #6 only applies to components that link with the original or modified versions of the Software. It doesn't apply to derived works. When discussing whether a license meets the DFSG, patched versions of the license cannot help the unpatched original license to meet the DFSG... I'm not talking about a hypothetical patched license, and you should consider reading what people write before replying on a mailing list. And anyway, you there's not only clause 6c: another issue that makes the QPL fail to meet the DFSG is the choice of venue. There is no choice of venue, only choice of law. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Copyright verification needed
Le jeudi 28 juin 2007 à 10:24 +0200, Bruno Costacurta a écrit : AFAICS you can use it legally if you port it to GNUTLS. - the actual code implemented a strong separation layer between OpenSSL and Qt (review of code can be made by independent party) thus licenses should not be mixed in their interpretations. Regardless of the implementation, a resulting binary that requires both OpenSSL and Qt to work is considered a derived work from both, and is therefore not distributable. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Copyright verification needed
On 6/28/07, Bruno Costacurta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, the project team was thinking about something like an 'advertising-special-exception-whatever-clause'. Something acceptable is a such direction by sirs FSF, GPL and others ? ;-( As Josselin pointed out, anything with Qt and OpenSSL is unusable. It doesn't matter what you do with your own application's license - it doesn't even need to be changed for OpenSSL as it's a non-copyleft revised BSD license. However, you also use Qt, and you can't change the license or add an exception to Qt. Only Trolltech can, as they're the copyright holder. So, you have three choices: * Convince the OpenSSL developers to relicense - difficulty: pretty much impossible * Use GNUTLS instead - difficulty: depends on what the app actually does * Stop using Qt - which could make the app pointless (if the app was developed specifically for Qt environments or something) or require a rewrite of all the GUI code at the least. -- Andrew Donnellan ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.comhttp://ajdlinux.wordpress.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 http://linux.org.auhttp://debian.org Spammers only === [EMAIL PROTECTED] === -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Copyright verification needed
On Tuesday 26 June 2007 00:48:16 Francesco Poli wrote: On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:06:58 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote: Le dimanche 24 juin 2007 à 09:30 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : The stuff from Trolltech is another matter though - they use the GPL and the QPL I believe. If you use it under the GPL, then it can't link to OpenSSL, and I believe the QPL is widely considered non-free. This is a bit more complicated. The QPL is DFSG-free, but only if you don't apply section #6 This is equivalent to saying that software solely released under the QPL does *not* comply with the DFSG. When discussing whether a license meets the DFSG, patched versions of the license cannot help the unpatched original license to meet the DFSG... And anyway, you there's not only clause 6c: another issue that makes the QPL fail to meet the DFSG is the choice of venue. The thread where these details are discussed starts here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg00157.html Gentlemen, thanks a lot for your attention and discussion. Can we come to a conclusion ? Shall I simply abandon at this stage any plan to package this application ? Should I continue to prepare and create an ITP (Intend To Package) to enter in an official package consideration ? Many thanks. Regards, Bruno -- PGP key ID: 0x2e604d51 Key server: hkp://subkeys.pgp.net Key fingerprint = 713F 7956 9441 7DEF 58ED 1951 7E07 569B 2E60 4D51 -- pgpDtz4Ux7MpL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Copyright verification needed
On 6/27/07, Bruno Costacurta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gentlemen, thanks a lot for your attention and discussion. Can we come to a conclusion ? Shall I simply abandon at this stage any plan to package this application ? Should I continue to prepare and create an ITP (Intend To Package) to enter in an official package consideration ? AFAICS you can use it legally if you port it to GNUTLS. -- Andrew Donnellan ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.comhttp://ajdlinux.wordpress.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 http://linux.org.auhttp://debian.org Spammers only === [EMAIL PROTECTED] === -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Copyright verification needed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: to OpenSSL, and I believe the QPL is widely considered non-free. Your belief is not correct. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Copyright verification needed
Le dimanche 24 juin 2007 à 09:30 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : The stuff from Trolltech is another matter though - they use the GPL and the QPL I believe. If you use it under the GPL, then it can't link to OpenSSL, and I believe the QPL is widely considered non-free. This is a bit more complicated. The QPL is DFSG-free, but only if you don't apply section #6 - that is, if you consider the software based on it as a modified version and not as an item linking to it. In which case, it is a copyleft license, which is incompatible with both the GPL and OpenSSL. Practically speaking, if you link the software to OpenSSL you would have to send any sources (including private ones) to the initial developer upon request, while if you don't you just have to license it under a license compatible with the QPL. Cheers, -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Copyright verification needed
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:06:58 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote: Le dimanche 24 juin 2007 à 09:30 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : The stuff from Trolltech is another matter though - they use the GPL and the QPL I believe. If you use it under the GPL, then it can't link to OpenSSL, and I believe the QPL is widely considered non-free. This is a bit more complicated. The QPL is DFSG-free, but only if you don't apply section #6 This is equivalent to saying that software solely released under the QPL does *not* comply with the DFSG. When discussing whether a license meets the DFSG, patched versions of the license cannot help the unpatched original license to meet the DFSG... And anyway, you there's not only clause 6c: another issue that makes the QPL fail to meet the DFSG is the choice of venue. The thread where these details are discussed starts here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg00157.html -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpXqjG128NWr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Copyright verification needed
On Sunday 24 June 2007 01:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/24/07, Bruno Costacurta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I'm preparing an ITP (Intend To Package) as a newbie regarding Debian packaging. About the source (for the ITP) I'm not the developer and simply reproduced the copyright I found with source code. Could you please check the attached copyright file and its respect to Debian rules about license / copyright ? The template of the file was created by dh_make tools and I manually completed needed fields. It appears to be a standard 3-clause BSD license, which is fine, however it also claims to link with OpenSSL and some stuff from Trolltech. OpenSSL is fine, however it is GPL incompatible, so if this software is a library, you have to be careful. The stuff from Trolltech is another matter though - they use the GPL and the QPL I believe. If you use it under the GPL, then it can't link to OpenSSL, and I believe the QPL is widely considered non-free. -- Andrew Donnellan ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.comhttp://ajdlinux.wordpress.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 http://linux.org.auhttp://debian.org Spammers only === [EMAIL PROTECTED] === Many thanks for your attention. I checked more closely the licenses related to OpenSSl and Trolltech which I found within related Debian packages I install to build my own package (please find both licenses attached). My personal feeling is that they looks fine. Maybe I should simply complete my first copyright file by adding licenses from OpenSSL and Trolltech (I repeat: both present in their respective Debian packages) ? I suppose I can rely on the fact that because such licenses are already present in other debian packages I can build my own with same licenses. Correct ? Many thanks for confirmation / correction. Bye, Bruno -- PGP key ID: 0x2e604d51 Key : http://www.costacurta.org/keys/bruno_costacurta_pgp_key.html Key fingerprint = 713F 7956 9441 7DEF 58ED 1951 7E07 569B 2E60 4D51 -- This package was debianized by Christoph Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 22 Nov 1996 21:29:51 +0100. Copyright (c) 1998-2004 The OpenSSL Project Copyright (c) 1995-1998 Eric A. Young, Tim J. Hudson The upstream sources were obtained from http://www.openssl.org/ LICENSE ISSUES == The OpenSSL toolkit stays under a dual license, i.e. both the conditions of the OpenSSL License and the original SSLeay license apply to the toolkit. See below for the actual license texts. Actually both licenses are BSD-style Open Source licenses. In case of any license issues related to OpenSSL please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenSSL License --- /* * Copyright (c) 1998-2004 The OpenSSL Project. All rights reserved. * * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions * are met: * * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in *the documentation and/or other materials provided with the *distribution. * * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this *software must display the following acknowledgment: *This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project *for use in the OpenSSL Toolkit. (http://www.openssl.org/) * * 4. The names OpenSSL Toolkit and OpenSSL Project must not be used to *endorse or promote products derived from this software without *prior written permission. For written permission, please contact *[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * 5. Products derived from this software may not be called OpenSSL *nor may OpenSSL appear in their names without prior written *permission of the OpenSSL Project. * * 6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following *acknowledgment: *This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project *for use in the OpenSSL Toolkit (http://www.openssl.org/) * * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE OpenSSL PROJECT ``AS IS'' AND ANY * EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE * IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR * PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE OpenSSL PROJECT OR * ITS CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, * SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT * NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; * LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) * HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN
Re: Copyright verification needed
On 6/24/07, Bruno Costacurta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Many thanks for your attention. I checked more closely the licenses related to OpenSSl and Trolltech which I found within related Debian packages I install to build my own package (please find both licenses attached). My personal feeling is that they looks fine. Maybe I should simply complete my first copyright file by adding licenses from OpenSSL and Trolltech (I repeat: both present in their respective Debian packages) ? I suppose I can rely on the fact that because such licenses are already present in other debian packages I can build my own with same licenses. Correct ? The Trolltech license is still a problem, since it's GPL, and OpenSSL cannot be linked to a GPL program (quoting from http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses): The license of OpenSSL is a conjunction of two licenses, one of them being the license of SSLeay. You must follow both. The combination results in a copyleft free software license that is incompatible with the GNU GPL. It also has an advertising clause like the original BSD license and the Apache license. We recommend using GNUTLS instead of OpenSSL in software you write. However, there is no reason not to use OpenSSL and applications that work with OpenSSL. It is incompatible because there is an advertising clause and a name-change clause, both of which make it impossible to link to a GPL program. I think you'd need to do one of the following: * not use OpenSSL * convert the OpenSSL code to use GNUTLS * or get a GPL exemption from Trolltech, which you most likely won't be able to. Can another d-l regular confirm? -- Andrew Donnellan ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.comhttp://ajdlinux.wordpress.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 http://linux.org.auhttp://debian.org Spammers only === [EMAIL PROTECTED] === -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Copyright verification needed
On 6/24/07, Bruno Costacurta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I'm preparing an ITP (Intend To Package) as a newbie regarding Debian packaging. About the source (for the ITP) I'm not the developer and simply reproduced the copyright I found with source code. Could you please check the attached copyright file and its respect to Debian rules about license / copyright ? The template of the file was created by dh_make tools and I manually completed needed fields. It appears to be a standard 3-clause BSD license, which is fine, however it also claims to link with OpenSSL and some stuff from Trolltech. OpenSSL is fine, however it is GPL incompatible, so if this software is a library, you have to be careful. The stuff from Trolltech is another matter though - they use the GPL and the QPL I believe. If you use it under the GPL, then it can't link to OpenSSL, and I believe the QPL is widely considered non-free. -- Andrew Donnellan ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.comhttp://ajdlinux.wordpress.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 http://linux.org.auhttp://debian.org Spammers only === [EMAIL PROTECTED] === -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
