Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> writes: > Is that true? When does it even come up? What do this majority of > upstream authors take the meaning and purpose of the phrase
> unless that component itself accompanies the executable. > in the GPLv2 to be? Most upstream authors that I've spoken with don't believe that licensing crosses the shared library ABI boundary, that the shared OpenSSL library and the GPLv2 program that calls it remain separate works, and therefore there is no need for OpenSSL to meet the GPLv2 requirements since the binary as distributed is not a derivative work of both projects. Instead, the projects are combined at runtime by the end user, who doesn't have to meet any redistributability requirements of either license. The FSF is a notable exception to this. -- 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/87wqimtbdv....@windlord.stanford.edu
