On 23/12/13 02:16, Shawn Wilson wrote: > My gut reaction was that #5 or #6 are the best option (leaning to #6). > However I guess I don't understand what making something a system library > effects the license? > > Andreas Metzler <ametz...@debian.org> wrote: >> >> #5 Declare GMP to be a system library. >> >> #6 Move to GnuTLS3, drop GnuTLS2. Packages which cannot use GnuTLS3 >> for license reasons will need to drop TLS support or be relicensed or >> be ported to a different TLS library. >>
I would vote for #5 and also I would re-evaluate our position regarding OpenSSL by asking a lawyer as others have expressed in this thread. About the system library exception, this is what the GPL FAQ tells: Q: Can I link a GPL program with a proprietary system library? A: Both versions of the GPL have an exception to their copyleft, commonly called the system library exception. If the GPL-incompatible libraries you want to use meet the criteria for a system library, then you don't have to do anything special to use them; the requirement to distribute source code for the whole program does not include those libraries, even if you distribute a linked executable containing them. The criteria for what counts as a "system library" vary between different versions of the GPL. GPLv3 explicitly defines "System Libraries" in section 1, to exclude it from the definition of "Corresponding Source." GPLv2 deals with this issue slightly differently, near the end of section 3. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SystemLibraryException
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
