Re: GNAT GPL vs non-GPL compatible open source license

[Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>]

Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au> writes:
> Looking at the license in Debian:
>
> --- cut ---
>   The OpenSSL toolkit stays under a dual license, i.e. both the
>   conditions of the OpenSSL License and the original SSLeay license
>   apply to the toolkit.  See below for the actual license
>   texts. Actually both licenses are BSD-style Open Source
>   licenses. In case of any license issues related to OpenSSL please
>   contact openssl-core@openssl.org.
> --- cut ---
>
> This IIRC presents to problems:
>
> 1. The BSD license is the old BSD style license with advertising
>    clause.
>
> 2. The original SSLeay license has a similar clause.
>
> It is the opinion of the Debian legal time that both of these make the
> license GPL incompatible. As such, it would be considered a bug if you
> were to package code that uses both of these in Debian.
>
> If on the other hand it used the new BSD license without the
> advertising clause, that would be OK (my understanding at least).

Yes, this is my understanding too.

>     Maxim> Actualy AWS (Ada Web Server) distributed under GPL even it
>     Maxim> contains binding to openssl.
>
> That looks like a can a worms to me, I think I will stay away...

Correct.  As of now, the AWS in Debian is still version 2.0p under
GMGPL, so I can distribute a binary of libaws linked with OpenSSL:

Package: libaws2
Priority: optional
Section: libs
Installed-Size: 2496
Maintainer: Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>
Architecture: i386
Source: libaws
Version: 2.0p-6
Depends: libc6 (>= 2.3.5-1), libgnat-3.15p-1 (>= 3.15p-13),
    libldap2 (>= 2.1.17-1), libssl0.9.7, libxmlada1,
    zlib1g (>= 1:1.2.1)
...

(notice libssl0.9.7: this is the shared library package for OpenSSL)

However, after I do the transition to a newer GNAT, I will want to
package AWS 2.1 which is under pure GPL.  At that point, I will not be
able to distribute binaries linked with OpenSSL.  I may either drop
the SSL functionality, or try to use GNU TLS instead of OpenSSL.  In
fact, if Pascal and Dmitriy are listening, it would help me quite a
lot if you would consider doing this in the next release of AWS.  (It
would also help if you would call it AWS 3.0, because Debian policy
requires that the soname change if the binary interface changes).

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.