fine, but lintian now moans:
>>
>> E: dvisvgm: possible-gpl-code-linked-with-openssl
>>
>> Indeed the new package now depends on libssl1.1 and the binary is linked
>> with "libssl1.1:i386: /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libcrypto.so.1.1". Anybody
>> having a clue
On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 12:00:48PM +0200, Hilmar Preuße wrote:
> in [1] I changed the BD of dvisvgm from ghostscript to libgs-dev (BD on
> gs was removed later on), due to #940700. The package still compiles
> fine, but lintian now moans:
>
> E: dvisvgm: possible-gpl-code-link
Hi,
in [1] I changed the BD of dvisvgm from ghostscript to libgs-dev (BD on
gs was removed later on), due to #940700. The package still compiles
fine, but lintian now moans:
E: dvisvgm: possible-gpl-code-linked-with-openssl
Indeed the new package now depends on libssl1.1 and the binary is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Russ Allbery schrieb:
>Dominik George writes:
>
>> That said, I my personal opinion is that doing the above is plain
>> nonsense from a FOSS point of view, and if upstream's intention is to
>> produce open software, they have to respond to the lice
Dominik George writes:
> That said, I my personal opinion is that doing the above is plain
> nonsense from a FOSS point of view, and if upstream's intention is to
> produce open software, they have to respond to the license issue.
Unfortunately, upstreams don't necessarily see it that way. I've
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Gert Wollny schrieb:
>The real issue is, who linked the binary that gets distributed, and
>therefore, who has to comply with the GPL, and this is not the upstream
>author. To rephrase Dominik's comment: "Upstream did not link openssl
>against the b
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 04:18:20PM +0200, Richi Lists wrote:
> Is my understanding correct, in that the upstream author needs to add
> the OpenSSL exception to the upstream license before I can package?
... which also requires consent of all copyright holders
> I tried twice to contact upstream to
On 10/16/2013 11:08 AM, Gert Wollny wrote:
On Wed, 2013-10-16 at 10:36 -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
I can see where this might not be enough to allow adding the
license exception without an explicit statement from upstream, but
at least to my eye, it does seem to contradict the notion that
"upst
On Wed, 2013-10-16 at 10:36 -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> I can see where this might not be enough to allow adding the license
> exception without an explicit statement from upstream, but at least to
> my eye, it does seem to contradict the notion that "upstream did not
> link against [OpenSSL]".
On 10/16/2013 10:21 AM, Dominik George wrote:
Richi Lists schrieb:
Or can I add the excpetion myself, assuming since the author chose
to link agains openssl, he is ok with it?
Definitely not. Upstream did not link against it - you do that.
The upstream README on GitHub states that "At pre
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Richi Lists schrieb:
>Or can I add the excpetion myself, assuming since the author chose to
>link agains openssl, he is ok with it?
Definitely not. Upstream did not link against it - you do that.
- -nik
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: APG
Is my understanding correct, in that the upstream author needs to add
the OpenSSL exception to the upstream license before I can package?
I tried twice to contact upstream to add that exception, but didn't get
any response:
https://github.com/samr7/vanitygen/issues/36
Does that mean, the package
Hi Russ,
Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> If you add the exception from upstream to the copyright file and it uses
> one of the standard wordings that talks about an exception or exemption,
> lintian will figure it out for itself without needing an override.
>
I will take care of it to avoid the use of
Hi Vincent,
Vincent Bernat wrote:
> OoO Pendant le journal télévisé du samedi 19 avril 2008, vers 20:35,
>
> You cannot just add yourself the exception in debian/copyright. You
> should ask upstream about this issue and tell him to add the exception
> which allows to link OpenSSL to h
Vincent Bernat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When upstream fixes this copyright issue, you need to add a lintian
> override as stated in the warning. A lintian override is a file that you
> install in /usr/share/lintian/overrides/tcltls and that contains:
>
> tcltls: pos
OoO Pendant le journal télévisé du samedi 19 avril 2008, vers 20:35,
Muammar El Khatib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> disait:
> I am maintaining tcltls, and now I have to upload a new version. When I ran
> lintian -iI I got this:
> W: tcltls: possible-gpl-code-linked-with-openssl
&
Hi *,
I am maintaining tcltls, and now I have to upload a new version. When I ran
lintian -iI I got this:
W: tcltls: possible-gpl-code-linked-with-openssl
N:
N: This package appears to be covered by the GNU GPL but depends on the
N: OpenSSL libssl package and does not mention a license
17 matches
Mail list logo
