bug#34717: GPL and Openssl incompatibilities in u-boot and possibly others

[Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1619 bytes --]

On 2019-03-09, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> skribis:
>> On 2019-03-08, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>> Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> skribis:
>>> In addition, we can add a ‘lint’ 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’t 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’d and has a
> direct dependency on OpenSSL (we’d forget about indirect dependencies 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

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]