On 29 May 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-05-29 at 13:01, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > In the legal world, wording makes all the difference. The GPL
> > > specifically talks about code that's distributed *with* the GPLed
> > > binary, not about code distributed *by the same people as* the GPLed
> > > binary, and we have no reason to believe that this distinction was
> > > unintentional. Many vendors of proprietary Unices (e.g., Sun) seem to
> > > already be counting on the fact that it is not.
> >
> > This seems very dodgy. Firstly, you're claiming that main does not
> > accompany non-us, which is very hard to justify as it's all on the
> > same servers and non-us doesn't make much sense without main.
>
> The fact that non-us doesn't make sense without main isn't really
> relevant. We're trying to fit into the GPL exception for system
> libraries; if we can fit, then the dependency on the OpenSSL "system
> library" isn't a problem.
libssl0.9.6 is a standard library in main, so I guess it could
very well be construed as a standard Debian Operating System library.
Could we get the FSF to clarify if this would allow us to link GPLed
software to this library under the OS linking provision?
If the FSF approves this, then we can take corrective action
with the software authors; as I'm sure most of them don't want their
users violating the GPL by accident.
Simon
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
