Bug#624310: closed by Mike Hommey <mh at glandium.org> (Re: Bug#624310: [libnss3-1d] Out of date copyright file)
roucaries.bastien at gmail.com
Mon Jul 4 16:30:32 UTC 2011
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Mike Hommey <mh at 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 <mh at 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.
More information about the pkg-mozilla-maintainers