[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug-gnubg] Serious bug: Random.org - Important Request for Comments

From: Russ Allbery
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Serious bug: Random.org - Important Request for Comments
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 23:31:01 -0800
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux)

Michael Petch <address@hidden> writes:
> On 2015-01-13 7:51 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> That's Debian's position as well, so we always link GPL-covered
>> packages against the GnuTLS build of libcurl in the Debian archives.

> I discovered that Debian has a notice about the licensing issues
> regarding OpenSSL:

> https://lintian.debian.org/tags/possible-gpl-code-linked-with-openssl.html

> I'd be curious if the checks pick up on GPL code that relies on a
> library that in turns relies on OpenSSL.

No, sadly.  :/  We usually find that stuff manually.

> I happened to ask this question on a private FSF mailing list and the
> consensus is that linking directly or indirectly to OpenSSL would be a
> licensing issue if you are distributing binaries. That appears to be in
> line with Debian's view as well.

Yeah, Debian and the FSF use basically the same analysis here.  Other
organizations have reached different conclusions.  It's a murky area of
law that's never been tested in court so far as I know.

Russ Allbery (address@hidden)              <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]