On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 09:25:32AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 06:21:55AM +0100, Robert McQueen wrote: > > > As a preamble if I just gatecrashed your mailbox or mailing list without > > warning, I am the Debian package maintainer for Gaim, as well as a > > frequent contributor to upstream development. I have just found out > > today that the Gaim-Encryption plugin for Gaim, which can be found at > > http://gaim-encryption.sourceforge.net/, makes use of the OpenSSL > > library, and loads it into the same process space as Gaim. > > > Due to OpenSSL's four-clause BSD license (ie with the advertising clause), > > it is therefore in violation of Gaim's GPL license because the OpenSSL > > licence places an extra restriction beyond those allowable by the GPL. > > The Debian project will not distribute code of this nature, especially > > given that several Gaim developers (myself included) agree with the Debian > > project's position on this, and this message constitutes us contacting > > other distributors and the plugin author with this information. > > It should be noted that this can only be a violation of the GPL if > someone is distributing the encryption plugin in binary form. (Does > Gentoo distribute binaries of this software?) It is generally held that > it would also *not* be a violation of the GPL if you distribute the > encryption module in isolation, only if you distribute it together with > binaries of gaim itself.
gentoo distributes source that is automatically compiled. but the other group mentioned, f*, i forget the name, distributes rpms, thus binaries. > > Given that you have explicitly said you don't have access to all > contributors to effect I license change, I presume this means gaim is > under the canonical GPL license, and that you are not attempting to > promote an alternative, overbroad interpretation of the GPL with your > statements above. correct, we are not changing our license, and are using the canonical GPL. > > > For misinformation, read the OpenSSL FAQ which claims that OpenSSL is > > shipped with most operating systems and therefore falls under the GPL's > > exception for OS components. I interpret this to mean the kernel and > > shell, and libraries inbetween, and because it is specifically named in > > the GPL text, the compiler. It is certainly very easy to install Debian > > or any other distro without OpenSSL being present. The same is also > > doubtlessly true for any number of non-Linux platforms, not least Windows, > > where both Gaim and Gaim-Encryption are available in binary form, and > > OpenSSL is certainly not part of the OS! > > To be precise, you cannot take advantage of the GPL's "OS exemption" if > your product is the OS. this is partly in reply to a bug which requested that we distribute this in the deibian package, which would, like the rpm, be a violation. luke -- -This email is made of 100% recycled electrons.
