Hi Francesco, On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Francesco Poli (wintermute) <invernom...@paranoici.org> wrote: > I noticed that ntop is mainly licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL > v2 or later, with only one file (ssl.c) having an OpenSSL linking > exception. > > However, ntop seems to link with libssl (which is notoriously > GPL-incompatible) and also seems to link with libgdbm (which [1] > is licensed under the GNU GPL v2 or later, with no OpenSSL > linking exception). > > [1] > http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/g/gdbm/gdbm_1.8.3-11/libgdbm3.copyright
This does not look like an issue to me. There is no linking from libgdm3 to openssl, and libgdm3 makes no use of openssl, so the problematic clauses of the openssl do not apply to to libgdm3. > I am under the impression that several ntop source GPL-licensed > files get compiled into a binary that links with libssl, > but do not have any OpenSSL linking exception. The only source code file which uses openssl is ssl_utils.c and it has an openssl exception. I thought that was enough. However, I did some reading to refresh my memory on the topic and I can see how this could be interpreted to apply to all source code files that to into the binary. > The possible solutions I can think of are: > > A) ntop is modified so that it can link with GNUTLS, instead > of OpenSSL I can try to do this. Hopefully the release team will accept the patch. > B) an OpenSSL linking exception is granted to all the relevant > files by the respective copyright holders and also to I do not think this is feasible as there are far too many contributors. Thank you for the report, Ludovico -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
