GPLv3

[Andreas Metzler]

On 2007-12-16 Simon Josefsson <simon at josefsson.org> wrote:
> Andreas Metzler <ametzler at downhill.at.eu.org> writes:
[...]
> I'd expect this to be quite few libraries.  For my information, how do
> you generate a list of packages that link to libgnutls-extra?
[...]

Brute force shellscripting. Unpack all packages depending on
libgnutls13 (that is only direct linking.) and check ldd output.

ametzler at merkel:/tmp/gnut$ zcat /org/ftp.root/debian/dists/unstable/*/binary-ia64/Packages.gz | grep-dctrl -FDepends -sFilename libgnutls13 | sed -e 's_^Filename: _/org/ftp.root/debian/_' > rdep-files
ametzler at merkel:/tmp/gnut$ for i in `cat rdep-files ` ; do dpkg -x $i `basename $i _ia64.deb` ; done
ametzler at merkel:/tmp/gnut$ for i in `find -type f -print` ; do if ldd "$i" 2>/dev/null | grep -q libgnutls- ; then echo $i ; fi; done > /tmp/reffer.gnutls 2>&1 

> > Most of the packages listing GPLv2 as license seem to be false
> > positives or a least unclear (freewheeling, gkrellm, kildclient,
> > sipsak). ssmtp is also in the unclear camp. lynx seems to be the only
> > package that actually will lose its SSL functionality, since it is
> > GPLv2.

> Can't they just stop using libgnutls-extra?

I was not aiming to dig in to depths of code, and just checked
licenses.  I have submitted bug reports against the unclear packages,
asking for clarification or a possible switch to GPLv2+. gkrellm is
already resolved.

#456433 #456440 #456439 #456442

> Lynx doesn't support OpenPGP or SRP authentication anyway, does it?
> I don't see why it needs to link with libgnutls-extra.
[...]

lynx is using the OpenSSL compatibility layer. I do not know why it
links against -extra, too.
cu andreas
-- 
`What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are
so grateful to you.'
`I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'