On 12/28/2013 06:09 PM, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > * Thomas Goirand <z...@debian.org> [131228 08:30]: >> don't think it does anymore, especially seeing that almost no upstream >> author cares about Debian's nit-picking on this particular issue. We're >> just beating ourselves for no valid reason. > > Almost no upstream author cares about licensing at all. The mayority of > them has no problems giving self-contradictionary terms. Distributing > stuff with no license at all. Or simply copying other people's code > without looking at the license or even without including any license > statement or even copyright notice.
The licensing careless attitude of some upstreams is a reality in some cases, however I am having a hard time to generalize it like this, and be take it as a valid point for this debate. Most upstream authors who cares about licensing, do not agree with Debian's view about GPL and OpenSSL incompatibility, and this is what counts. > Debian is no corporation that can just willy-nilly copy stuff around > without caring for the law and hoping noone will find out or just > pay the authors off if they find out. You are writing this just as if we're going to have a trial because of the issue we're discussing. This will *NOT* happen. > And our users are not really > helped if the software they depended on suddenly is no longer available > because noone cared for the license before. Exactly what software will be "no longer available" if we decide to revert our (IMO wrong) interpretation about the OpenSSL & GPL license? This makes no sense to me. Cheers, Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52c0d6b0.1080...@debian.org