severity 498857 important severity 498477 important thanks > I don't know the real implication on the license
if you're unsure then don't make it RC in the first place > reopen 498857 > reopen 498477 > thanks > > OoO En cette nuit nuageuse du vendredi 19 septembre 2008, vers 00:53, > Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> disait=A0: > > > Hi Vincent, > > thanks for looking into licensing issues in Debian. > > > How exactly is the python license GPL-incompatible? > > > If you scroll down a screen or two on the license[1] and move your > > attention to the right column, you will find the assertion that all > > recent versions of python have a GPL-compatible license, even indicating > > where the FSF's opinion differs from the python copyright holders. > > In particular, all python versions from oldstable onwards are > > undisputedly GPL-compatible. > > Hi Thomas! > > I did not say that python license is GPL-incompatible. There are two > problems: > - the fact that readline.so module is linked to GNU Readline is not > mentioned in debian/copyright where it should because if the user > uses this module in some non-GPL work and distribute it, it will > break GPL because GNU Readline is GPL. > - _ssl.so is linked with OpenSSL and hence is incompatible with GPL > without an exception that is not granted in GNU Readline. Therefore, > a program cannot be linked to both readline.so and _ssl.so. > > GPL compatibility only says that you can mix Python code with GPL code > and get a valid GPL code (first footnote in debian/copyright highlights > the meaning of "GPL compatible"). Python license is GPL compatible > however not every piece of Python is licensed under Python license. > debian/copyright contains some exceptions. readline.so is another > exception that should be noted in debian/copyright. > > The rest of the world don't believe there is no problem with this. Apple > removed GNU Readline of its Python and replaced it with editline (which > causes some incompatibilities). > > About the second problem, as both readline.so and _ssl.so are optional > module, I am not really sure if this is a serious problem or if a note > could be dropped in debian/copyright about the fact that a program using > both _ssl.so and readline.so cannot be distributed. > > I am putting debian-legal@ in copy to those bugs to get some additional > insights on this matter. I am not a lawyer. > =2D-=20 > I WILL NOT AIM FOR THE HEAD > I WILL NOT AIM FOR THE HEAD > I WILL NOT AIM FOR THE HEAD > =2D+- Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode 8F13 > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
