Please agree to add OpenSSL exception to Offlineimap

[Johannes Stezenbach]

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 09:32:46AM +0200, Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
> Taking this to the list, as it might be of interest to all.

I'm not subsribed anymore, not sure if my reply will make it to the list.

> On 24.09.2014 08:58, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> > I hereby grant you the permission to change the license of my
> > contributions to include the above openssl exception.
> > 
> > However, at the same time I'm not sure why it is needed since
> > offlineimap is written in Python and thus not directly
> > linked to OpenSSL, it only uses Python's ssl library.  Right?
> > FWIW, offlineimap is not listed here:
> > https://lintian.debian.org/tags/possible-gpl-code-linked-with-openssl.html
> > 
> > The gist of this discussion also seems to indicate this license
> > issue does not really exist:
> > https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-March/thread.html#109032
> 
> 1) I am no lawyer :-).

Even if you were one it wouldn't help.  What would matter is what judges
would rule in a case involving this issue.  Hm, what is the likeliness
of such a case to ever happen?  Who would sue whom and why?  And what
would be the consequences of such a suit other than someone would
have to come up with patch to port Python to use GnuTLS or Mozilla NSS?

> Yes...,.  I'd rather be better safe than sorry here.

Your choice.  I don't feel like using more of my time
to discuss this, thus I gave my permission for the license
change right way.  If this is imposed on you by Debian I guess
I'd do the same thing as you.  But I would ask the DPL or
Technical Comittee for official statement, a simple bug
report does not mean the bug is valid.  As was pointed
out Python's hashlib also uses OpenSSL and is potentially
used by many more programs than Python's ssl module,
so it should be important enough to bother the DPL + TC.
(or whoever else is the Debian body to make official
licensing decisions)


Johannes