Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!

Bug 503782

Summary: net-libs/polarssl: LICENSE misses the 'FOSS License Exception' part
Product: Gentoo Linux Reporter: Michał Górny <mgorny>
Component: Current packagesAssignee: Thomas Sachau <tommy>
Status: RESOLVED FIXED    
Severity: normal CC: hasufell, licenses, ryao
Priority: Normal    
Version: unspecified   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---
Bug Depends on:    
Bug Blocks: 618354    

Description Michał Górny archtester Gentoo Infrastructure gentoo-dev Security 2014-03-07 21:58:36 UTC
(CC-ing licenses@ with hope they could suggest an elegant way of handling this)

net-libs/polarssl-1.3.0 has:

  LICENSE="GPL-2"

which suggests that it's impossible to use the library in non-GPL code. However, upstream has a FOSS License Exception [1] which allows linking a few other FOSS licenses [2].

[1]:https://polarssl.org/foss-license-exception
[2]:https://polarssl.org/kb/licensing/using-polarssl-in-a-non-gpl-project
Comment 1 Ulrich Müller gentoo-dev 2014-03-08 07:30:59 UTC
(In reply to Michał Górny from comment #0)
>   LICENSE="GPL-2"

License notices in source files say "version 2 or later", so this should be "GPL-2+".

> which suggests that it's impossible to use the library in non-GPL code.

A library licensed under the GPL can be linked with any program under a GPL-compatible license. (See the @GPL-COMPATIBLE license group for a list.)

On your own system, you can also link it with anything that is incompatible with the GPL, but you cannot distribute the resulting binary.

> However, upstream has a FOSS License Exception [1] which allows linking a
> few other FOSS licenses [2].
> 
> [1]:https://polarssl.org/foss-license-exception
> [2]:https://polarssl.org/kb/licensing/using-polarssl-in-a-non-gpl-project

Hm, most of the licenses they list in [1] are GPL-compatible anyway. AFAICS, the only ones where their exception has an effect (i.e. that are incompatible with the GPL) are Apache-1* and EUPL-1.0.

> (CC-ing licenses@ with hope they could suggest an elegant way of handling
> this)

We have a few other licenses of the GPL-2-with*exception* type already, and we have gcc-runtime-library-exception-3.1, too.

@Licenses team: Do we prefer the former (i.e. exception and GPL together in one file), or the latter (exception in a file of its own)?


Disclaimer: IANAL, TINLA.
Comment 2 Julian Ospald 2014-07-04 22:24:35 UTC
anything to do here? Otherwise I will close this bug.
Comment 3 Larry the Git Cow gentoo-dev 2018-01-15 04:15:22 UTC
The bug has been closed via the following commit(s):

https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=b01ba5b1c17186f40b54490d8f901211167da49a

commit b01ba5b1c17186f40b54490d8f901211167da49a
Author:     Thomas Deutschmann <whissi@gentoo.org>
AuthorDate: 2018-01-15 04:13:05 +0000
Commit:     Thomas Deutschmann <whissi@gentoo.org>
CommitDate: 2018-01-15 04:13:05 +0000

    net-libs/polarssl: Removal
    
    Closes: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/6124
    Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/503782
    Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/537108
    Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/618354
    Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/503604

 net-libs/polarssl/Manifest                         |  1 -
 .../files/polarssl-1.3.9-respect-cflags.patch      | 15 ----
 net-libs/polarssl/metadata.xml                     | 18 ----
 net-libs/polarssl/polarssl-1.3.9-r1.ebuild         | 95 ----------------------
 net-libs/polarssl/polarssl-1.3.9.ebuild            | 92 ---------------------
 profiles/default/linux/package.use.mask            |  4 -
 profiles/package.mask                              |  6 --
 7 files changed, 231 deletions(-)