On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 06:30:32PM +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: > 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.
Do these GPL programs mention they use dbm ? If not, they comply to the license. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
