> On Sep 9, 2004, at 23:36, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > The GPL requires that all derived works be entirely available under the > > terms of the GPL.
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 08:35:59AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > Yes, but OpenSSL wouldn't be a derived work of the GPL program (it > can't be, because it was created before the GPL program). Irrelevant: The derived works in question isn't OpenSSL, the question is about the program which includes both the GPLed program and the OpenSSL library. > > One piece of the resulting binary--OpenSSL--is not. > > This seems to clearly violate the spirit of the GPL. > > It might, but the GPL does have the normal components of an OS > exception, for example. And only GPL (3), not (1) or (2) mentions all > components of the resulting binary. This is valid for the case where we're not shipping that derived work with the GPL'd parts of the program. So, for an extreme example, users writing shell scripts that include curl+ssl and some gnu utils don't have any such issue to worry about (well, unless they're distributing that script and running a debian mirror, or some such). Of course, another issue is: does anyone really care about this kind of thing? If people do, perhaps the right place to start would be to create a dummy package which conflicts with all packages which provide software only available under a gpl-compatible license. -- Raul
