On 10-8-2004 00:49, "Glenn Maynard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I propose to built netatalk (with GPL licence) against OpenSSL (a non-GPL
>> licence) and distribute the whole with the GPL licence. How does that
>> violate the GPL?
>
> You can't distribute the whole under the GPL. You must adhere to the OpenSSL
> license *and* the GPL, since the binary you're distributing combines both.
>
> In order to distribute a binary under the GPL, you must grant a license
> to the entire work under the terms of the GPL (see GPL section 6). That
> includes all code being used, regardless of what technology is being used
> to bind that stuff together (static linking, dynamic linking). However,
> you can't do that; you don't have permission to grant me a license to
> OpenSSL under those terms. Therefore, you can't comply with GPL#6, and
> so you can't distribute the binary.
OK. I understand your argument, but I do not agree with it, and in fact
would argue that this
Since your opinion forms the majority, that is the end of that.
For the record, this is my opinion:
If indeed, if I am ONLY distributing netatalk binary, linked to OpenSSL, but
no including OpenSSL. Then I have a program able to talk to OpenSSL is
present. However, it can just as well work without it (as long as I don't
use the features it requires OpenSSL for). So because of that, I'd say that
this makes netatalk a standalone work.
If this nonetheless *due to the GPL* (as opposed to due the OpenSSL licence)
"contaminates" the *WHOLE* OpenSSL package by forcing it to redistribute as
GPL (note: be aware that I do not actually distribute any actual executable
OpenSSL code! I may not distribute OpenSSL with it, or distribute it as
source). Well, this would be a violation of rule #9 of the Debian Free
Software Guidelines:
9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software
The license must not place restrictions on other software that is
distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the
license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the
same medium must be free software.
If your reasoning of this contamination is correct (I personally hope it is
not, but FSF seems to think so), I argue that the above line of the DFSG
explicitly forbids to use the GPL for any component of Debian software.
Shocking...
Also for the record, if I look at the restriction imposed by the OpenSSL
licence, they are not as bad as the restrictions imposed by the GPL when it
comes to distributing a binary version of netatalk:
According to #3 of the OpenSSL licence, you must include the attribute to
the OpenSSL Group. However, you do not to place whole or part of netatalk
under the OpenSSL licence, because it does not talk about derivate works. Or
to be precise: it does not explicitly define 'derivate works' as extremely
broad, as the GPL does (but other licences like the LGPL do not). Simular to
if OpenSSL would have been under LGPL, then netatalk would also not be a
derivate work. The OpenSSL talks about "redistributions in binary form".
However, since 0 bytes of OpenSSL code are shipped with the linked version,
I can only reasonably conclude that this would not apply to this particular
binary distribution of netatalk.
I will have a look in incorporating GnuTLS, even though I personally belief
that this whole thing (duplicating an effort, just because of a single line
of attribution) is a serious indication that restrictions are overrated in
our society. I knew that, but I'm currently disappointed that this also
applies to open software. To me it is not in the spirit of "free" as
mentioned in the Debian Social Contract. Oh well, I'll survive.
Regards,
Freek Dijkstra
(being very disappointed in the GPL now)
