Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> writes: > I think you've managed to invert my point here, actually, which was that > when someone licenses their work under *the GPL*, we should respect > their wishes - even though it would make our lives a lot easier to be > able to ship binaries linked against OpenSSL.
Which means that we should go ahead and link with OpenSSL code from upstreams whose software is released under the GPL and who have declined to add an exception clause because they think our request for an exception clause is idiotic and they refuse to play along with what they consider to be ridiculous legal interpretations? I know at least one such upstream and I suspect there are lots more. There's a lot of software written under the GPL that explicitly and intentionally supports being linked with OpenSSL, and I have a hard time believing we're doing something somehow more ethical by declining to do so. Incidentally, one of the problem packages, Git, also has the same problem with relicensing: there are lots of copyright holders, and therefore no easy mechanism to add a license exception. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87eh535m1v....@windlord.stanford.edu
