Comment 9 for bug 26452

On 01-02-2004 21:53, "Sebastian Rittau" <email address hidden> wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 02:18:10AM +0100, Freek Dijkstra wrote:
>
>> You state that it is not possible to either
>> A) move netatalk to non-US; or
>> B) make a netatalk-ssl package; or
>> C) make a netatalk-dhx package
>> Due to licensing incompatibility between OpenSSL and Netatalk.
>>
>> Could you explain, or point me to a legal source?
>
> It seems that the participants of debian-legal are of the opinion that
> linking OpenSSL against GPLed code and distributing the result is against
> the OpenSSL license, mainly because of the following sentence:
>
> The licence and distribution terms for any publically available version or
> derivative of this code cannot be changed. i.e. this code cannot simply be
> copied and put under another distribution licence
> [including the GNU Public Licence.]
>
> I personally see no problems with this, but I have to follow the
> interpretation of debian-legal.

Agreed. What a hassle; in particular since both ARE open source.

I just read a few threads on debian-legal (I ought to have looked for that
first). Particularly interesting is the FAQ at OpenSSL
http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#LEGAL2 which almost takes the other
turn, and seems to suggest that GPL is the thing that is restricting use of
code under other licences, instead that the OpenSSL licence restricts the
use of code under other licences (like the GPL). Oh well, I don't know
anymore. Maybe they are right (wasn't that why there is a LGPL?).

Thanks for the howto!

Regards and also a big thanks for putting time in the community by being a
package maintainer!
Freek Dijkstra