On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Mike Hommey <m...@glandium.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 06:21:03PM +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: >> 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 > > The situation would need to be improved if nss was gpl only. It is not
Some GPL program link against libnss and it fail license test. Bastien > > Mike > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
