On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Mike Hommey <m...@glandium.org> wrote: >> > The NSS code is under 3 licenses, not only the GPL... >> >> No because you include 4 bsd it is illegal to license under GPL. Will >> send mail to legal. > > The DBM source code in nss is not licensed under GPL, but 4-clause BSD. > The NSS source is not licensed under GPL, but under MPL/GPL/LGPL. The > resulting binaries are licensed under whatever license is compatible, > which would probably be LGPL/MPL (though I'm not entirely sure for MPL). > That doesn't change the fact that the source is still MPL/GPL/LGPL > (except for dbm and a few other things), and that as such, you can use > some parts of nss in e.g. GPL projects. > > I've always thought that the copyright file in binary packages > containing information about the copyright of the source was not the > best thing to do. We have here a specific case where it is confusing at > best. Not illegal.
Yes but we could avoid this pitfall if we update the dbm file in order to be compatible with gpl. They are already released as a 3 BSD... Please improve this situation bastien > Mike > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
