From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vagrant Cascadian Subject: bug#34717: GPL and Openssl incompatibilities in u-boot and possibly others Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2019 15:10:54 -0800 Message-ID: <871s3f1w5d.fsf@ponder> References: <87tvgkiurn.fsf@ponder> <87zhq8f2zz.fsf@gnu.org> <87ftrzuxmh.fsf@ponder> <87o96m8f09.fsf@ponder> <871s3his1i.fsf@gnu.org> <87k1h9i3gl.fsf@ponder> <87h8cb4sou.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:34097) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h2l8O-0008Uk-6w for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Mar 2019 18:12:05 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h2l8N-0004ac-Fb for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Mar 2019 18:12:04 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:52203) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h2l8N-0004aQ-Ah for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Mar 2019 18:12:03 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1h2l8N-00061h-4i for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Mar 2019 18:12:03 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87h8cb4sou.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 34717@debbugs.gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2019-03-09, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > Vagrant Cascadian skribis: >> On 2019-03-08, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: >>> Vagrant Cascadian skribis: >>> In addition, we can add a =E2=80=98lint=E2=80=99 checker for this case,= WDYT? >> >> Does the lint checker have a way to identify a confidence level, >> e.g. *maybe* it has this issue vs. *certainly*? Is there a way to >> override the lint checker issues for known false positives? Otherwise, >> it might just be annoying noise for packagers where it isn't >> appropriate. > > No it doesn=E2=80=99t have that notion of a confidence level. And I presume no overrides either, given no comment about that? > The warning could be triggered only when a package is GPL=E2=80=99d and h= as a > direct dependency on OpenSSL (we=E2=80=99d forget about indirect dependen= cies in > this case.) The noise would be rather limited and justified in this > case, I think. WDYT? The openssl package currently ships the "openssl" binary, as well as the libraries. I suspect there are at least three potential cases where a package might depend on it: * Calls the "openssl" binary as part of test suite or run-time. No licensing compatibility issue, no worries! * Using include files from the openssl headers; I guess you could search for "include .* openssl/*.h" in the source code. Might get some false positives. Can be run without actually even building it. * Linking against the library which should actually be easy to detect with ldd or other tools. Would need to build and then run the checks to be sure. live well, vagrant --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEARYKAB0WIQRlgHNhO/zFx+LkXUXcUY/If5cWqgUCXIRIAAAKCRDcUY/If5cW qqQ6AP9s1kqBzKCk/E1isIYoAqG4Wm5vclZ2dGtd0XZ8WJFTqwD/VHC5r3ue4Giv pg+mJl6s5mVQsGLYLjE1PWsRv8RmXQo= =ljv9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--