From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Noah Meyerhans Subject: iputils license issue Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 23:38:04 -0800 Message-ID: <20110207073804.GN23882@morgul.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="NzB8fVQJ5HfG6fxh" Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki Return-path: Received: from minas.morgul.net ([128.31.0.48]:55415 "EHLO minas.morgul.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752841Ab1BGI0D (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Feb 2011 03:26:03 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --NzB8fVQJ5HfG6fxh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Hello. In ac3fe58b (in the iputils git repo on linux-ipv6.org), code was added to ping6.c that makes use of some routines from OpenSSL's libcrypto library. No explicit licensing is attached to this code, so due to the concerns about mixing GPL code with OpenSSL code, I'm seeking clarification about the terms under which it may be distributed. The original heading for ping6.c indicates that the file is licensed under the BSD license. If the intent is for this new code to also be BSD licensed, could you state this in the copyright statement in ping6.c? If the intent was for the code to be licensed under the GPL, would you be willing to grant an exception similar to the example at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/07/msg00454.html Thanks. noah --NzB8fVQJ5HfG6fxh Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFNT6FcYrVLjBFATsMRAlY4AJ4pV3NVH7fOQuahakUUJaU/PoKuAwCfdW6N FFxl1eQQE/86cHw7Y8WWlqc= =uMQQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --NzB8fVQJ5HfG6fxh--