Bug#624310: closed by Mike Hommey <mh at glandium.org> (Re: Bug#624310: [libnss3-1d] Out of date copyright file)

[Bastien ROUCARIES]

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Mike Hommey <mh at glandium.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 06:30:32PM +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Do these GPL programs mention they use dbm ? If not, they comply to the
> license.

They MUST mention it per clause 1 et 2 of bsd license.

Bastien
>
> Mike
>