[DC LoCo] Please Explain This Bug

[Dan Chen]

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 15:28, Ken Stailey <kstailey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnutls26/+bug/926350/comments/10

I don't see any implication that the bug won't be fixed. Instead,
Colin explicitly requests that someone work to verify that none of
gnutls26's reverse-dependencies (rdeps) is LGPLv2-only. (I've
explicitly omitted the former option of libgmp's licensing being
relaxed; frankly I think that's a highly improbable occurrence.)

>
> Let me see if I understand.  The reason this bug is not going to be fixed is:
> * Only some of the software distributed by Debian and Canonical under the GNU General Public License Version 2 includes a clause that says
> you can use future versions of that license AND
> * Some of the libraries have converted to future versions of that license (e.g. GNU General Public License Version 3.) AND
> * In particular gmp-5.0.2+dfsg ("libgmp10") is licensed under LGPLv3
> while it is unproven if all of the software that links against it is
> compatible with that license AND
> * There is no automated system for tracking software license dependencies AND
> * Such a system is not available due to lack of reliably-machine-readable software license data AND
> * A project known as DEP-5 ( http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ ) exists to provide (develop) reliably-machine-readable software license data AND
> * If DEP-5 were completed all it would provide is detailed knowledge
> about software license interactions so that the areas which need work
> could be identified.
> Please correct me if any of the above in this comment is not correct.  Thank you.

Actually what's of pragmatic concern (again, ignoring the probability
of libgmp being relicensed more liberally) is whether any software
that depends on gnutls26 is LGPLv2-only.

>
> --
> Ubuntu-us-dc mailing list
> Ubuntu-us-dc at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-us-dc