Bug 317271

Summary: License conflicts: freeradius vs. openssl
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Ralf Ertzinger <redhat-bugzilla>
Component: freeradiusAssignee: John Dennis <jdennis>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: low Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: 8CC: kame55-itasenpara123, triage
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard: bzcl34nup
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-04-17 15:33:14 EDT Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 182235    

Description Ralf Ertzinger 2007-10-03 15:56:18 EDT
Description of problem:
freeradius is licensed gplv2+, as far as I was able to figure out, but links
against openssl, which is not allowed without an exception clause.

Did I miss that somewhere?

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
freeradius-1.1.7-3.1.fc8

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.
  
Actual results:


Expected results:


Additional info:
Comment 1 Bug Zapper 2008-04-04 09:58:49 EDT
Based on the date this bug was created, it appears to have been reported
during the development of Fedora 8. In order to refocus our efforts as
a project we are changing the version of this bug to '8'.

If this bug still exists in rawhide, please change the version back to
rawhide.
(If you're unable to change the bug's version, add a comment to the bug
and someone will change it for you.)

Thanks for your help and we apologize for the interruption.

The process we're following is outlined here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/F9CleanUp

We will be following the process here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping to ensure this
doesn't happen again.
Comment 2 John Dennis 2008-04-17 15:33:14 EDT
I don't see a license conflict, nor a requirement for an exception (see below),
but INAL (I'm Not A Lawyer). If you have a specific license conflict you can
point me to then please re-open this bug and cite it, otherwise for the time
being I'm going to close this.

From http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html

2. Can I use OpenSSL with GPL software?

On many systems including the major Linux and BSD distributions, yes (the GPL
does not place restrictions on using libraries that are part of the normal
operating system distribution).

On other systems, the situation is less clear. Some GPL software copyright
holders claim that you infringe on their rights if you use OpenSSL with their
software on operating systems that don't normally include OpenSSL.


Comment 3 mejiko 2013-05-12 22:05:45 EDT
(In reply to comment #2)
> I don't see a license conflict, nor a requirement for an exception (see
> below)

> From http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html

I think that openssl license is incompatible GPL. See Reference URI.

and, blocking FE-Legal.


Reference:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#What.27s_the_deal_with_the_OpenSSL_license.3F

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OpenSSL

I suggests that Re-open this bug, and:


1. Remove openssl support.

2. Replace GPL compatible library (Example: nss, gnutls)

3. Contact upstream author.

thanks.
Comment 5 John Dennis 2013-05-13 08:27:06 EDT
re comment #3

freeradius has shipped with the recommended openssl license exception (see /usr/share/doc/freeradius-*/LICENSE.openssl since 2009. This was approved by both Red Hat legal and Tom Callaway who oversee's Fedora's licensing. Given the license exception has been in effect for 4 years now and is approved I see no need to reopen this bug.

We will not port FreeRADIUS to an alternate crypto library because that would cause the configuration and operation of our version to differ from that of the upstream version. Compatibility with upstream is vital for customers and users who rely on deploying FreeRADIUS consistently across multiple distributions.

Also, upstream is well aware of the issue, in fact we and upstream arrived at the solution together 4 years ago, so I doubt upstream is going to be very interested in reopening this either.